Thread: images in one or more tables?

Hi list,

[Don't feed the troll: images *will stay* in table(s)]

I've need to store many images (BYTEA): items pictures, items datasheets PDFs
and documents PDFs (suppliers & clients.)

The logical way would be to stuff only one table with these images, however
wouldn't it be faster (in regard to long term accumulation) to have several
images tables (picture, datasheet, supdoc & clidoc) instead?

JY
--

On June 12, 2011 12:34:27 PM Jean-Yves F. Barbier wrote:
> The logical way would be to stuff only one table with these images, however
> wouldn't it be faster (in regard to long term accumulation) to have several
> images tables (picture, datasheet, supdoc & clidoc) instead?

It would definitely make maintenance easier to split them up.

Big tables are a pain.

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 13:24:39 -0700, Alan Hodgson <ahodgson@simkin.ca> wrote:

Thanks Allan.

..
> It would definitely make maintenance easier to split them up.
>
> Big tables are a pain.



--

On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 13:49:12 -0700 (PDT), Francisco Leovey <fleovey@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>>>>[Don't feed the troll: images *will stay* in table(s)]
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Can't you read?

> We only put http links (with other fields with descriptions and dates, etc)
> to images in the DB, makes backups and maintenance much easier, not to
> mention updates.
>
> --- On Sun, 6/12/11, Jean-Yves F. Barbier <12ukwn@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Jean-Yves F. Barbier <12ukwn@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [NOVICE] images in one or more tables?
> To: "Alan Hodgson" <ahodgson@simkin.ca>
> Cc: pgsql-novice@postgresql.org
> Date: Sunday, June 12, 2011, 5:36 PM
>
>
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 13:24:39 -0700, Alan Hodgson <ahodgson@simkin.ca> wrote:
>
> Thanks Allan.
>
> ..
> > It would definitely make maintenance easier to split them up.
> >
> > Big tables are a pain.
>
>
>


--
  Smoking is the leading cause of statistics.