On Sat, 2005-01-01 at 19:50 -0600, Dan Boitnott wrote: > On Jan 1, 2005, at 11:40 AM, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > > >>> > >> Intresting. > >> What is the size when bytea become inafective ? > >> > >> Currently i keep all my products images in bytea record. is it > >> practical ? > > > > Well I am going to make the assumption that you product images are > > small... > > sub 100k or something. Bytea is just fine for that. The problem is when > > the binary you want to store is 50 megs. When you access that file you > > will be using 50 megs of ram to do so. > > > > Large Objects don't work that way, you don't have the memory overhead. > > So > > it really depends on what you want to store. > > > > I prefer the _idea_ of using large objects but am worried about the > implications. Without them I can back up the database using pg_dump > and get a single tar file which can perfectly represent the database. > This gives me (and those on high) the warm-fuzzies. If I store files > (PDFs of varying sizes by the way, say from 500k to 50M) as large > objects, will I still be able to restore the _whole_ database from a > single pg_dump tar file?
Yes, you will be able to do this. Your pg_dump http://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/app-pgdump.html > -b > --blobs > > Include large objects in dump. > > -Robby -- /*************************************** * Robby Russell | Owner.Developer.Geek * PLANET ARGON | www.planetargon.com * Portland, OR | [EMAIL PROTECTED] * 503.351.4730 | blog.planetargon.com * PHP/PostgreSQL Hosting & Development * --- Now supporting PHP5 --- ****************************************/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
