Thread: bytea or large objects?
Hi, I am going to create binary objects in a database which are compressed eml files (1K - 10 Mbytes in size). Am I better using the bytea or large objects? Is there still an issue with backup and restore of databases using large objects with pg_dump/restore? Thanks in advance. Howard Cole www.selestial.com
Howard Cole wrote: > Hi, > > I am going to create binary objects in a database which are compressed > eml files (1K - 10 Mbytes in size). Am I better using the bytea or large > objects? > > Is there still an issue with backup and restore of databases using large > objects with pg_dump/restore? > > Thanks in advance. > Howard Cole > www.selestial.com > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq > I've just re-written our Whitebeam code to drop large-objects in favour of BYTEA fields. All the old problems of large objects in backups exist, but the killer for us was that none of the current replication systems,at least that I could find, would replicate large objects. This became a mandatory requirements for us. I'd have to have a *very* good reason to use large objects over BYTEA now. Pete -- http://www.whitebeam.org http://www.yellowhawk.co.uk -----
> I've just re-written our Whitebeam code to drop large-objects in favour > of BYTEA fields. > > All the old problems of large objects in backups exist, but the killer > for us was that none of the current replication systems, at least that I > could find, would replicate large objects. This became a mandatory > requirements for us. Mammoth Replicator has always replicated Large Objects. The only "backup" issue to large objects is that you have to pass a separate flag and use the custom or tar format to dump them. Bytea has its own issues mostly based around memory usage. I am not saying you should or shouldn't switch as it really depends on your needs but the information above just isn't quite accurate. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake > > I'd have to have a *very* good reason to use large objects over BYTEA now. > > Pete > -- > http://www.whitebeam.org > http://www.yellowhawk.co.uk > ----- > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings -- Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> I've just re-written our Whitebeam code to drop large-objects in >> favour of BYTEA fields. >> >> All the old problems of large objects in backups exist, but the killer >> for us was that none of the current replication systems, at least that >> I could find, would replicate large objects. This became a mandatory >> requirements for us. > > Mammoth Replicator has always replicated Large Objects. The only > "backup" issue to large objects is that you have to pass a separate flag > and use the custom or tar format to dump them. > > Bytea has its own issues mostly based around memory usage. > > I am not saying you should or shouldn't switch as it really depends on > your needs but the information above just isn't quite accurate. > > Sincerely, > > Joshua D. Drake > I should have added that my search was limited to open source/free replication systems. > >> >> I'd have to have a *very* good reason to use large objects over BYTEA >> now. >> >> Pete >> -- >> http://www.whitebeam.org >> http://www.yellowhawk.co.uk >> ----- >> >> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings > >
Peter Wilson wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > >> >>> I've just re-written our Whitebeam code to drop large-objects in >>> favour of BYTEA fields. >>> >>> All the old problems of large objects in backups exist, but the >>> killer for us was that none of the current replication systems, at >>> least that I could find, would replicate large objects. This became >>> a mandatory requirements for us. >> >> >> Mammoth Replicator has always replicated Large Objects. The only >> "backup" issue to large objects is that you have to pass a separate flag >> and use the custom or tar format to dump them. >> >> Bytea has its own issues mostly based around memory usage. >> >> I am not saying you should or shouldn't switch as it really depends >> on your needs but the information above just isn't quite accurate. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Joshua D. Drake >> Thanks Peter, Joshua, On this information I will probably opt for BYTEA. I do not use replication but aim to in the future, and would like to keep as many options open as possible. The memory problem of large BYTEA arrays does bother me. It would be nice to be able to open these types as file streams like the large object type and get the best of both worlds. Is this feasible? Best regards, Howard Cole www.selestial.com > I should have added that my search was limited to open source/free > replication > systems. > >> >>> >>> I'd have to have a *very* good reason to use large objects over >>> BYTEA now. >>> >>> Pete >>> -- >>> http://www.whitebeam.org >>> http://www.yellowhawk.co.uk >>> ----- >>> >>> ---------------------------(end of >>> broadcast)--------------------------- >>> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings >> >> >> > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq >