Am Tue, 3 Jul 2007 17:34:33 +0200 schrieb Martin Winkler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If you have binary data, why don't you use FileField and ImageField? > That way you'd store the large data in the filesystem and only have a > reference to the file in the database. Maybe I should clarify the problems as far as I am aware of them: Whenever you work with the result of MyModel.objects.filter() or .all() or even .get(), django loads the complete record(s) including all fields into memory. So if you want to present just a list of titles of 20 of your records, all these 20 records will be loaded into memory - which might be a HUGE amount of data. (As long as you don't play around with specialized Q() objects, as far as I know) Furthermore Django is not really meant to serve huge amounts of (more or less) static data. That's what your webserver is for. Your webserver might be able to continue a download which stopped in the middle at the correct location etc. So for me it makes much more sense to store the binary data in the filesystem because it has much less overhead. The only disadvantage I can see here is that for backups you not only have to save your database, but also one directory (including subdirs) of your file system. Martin --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
