jws wrote: > Do the images take up a certain percentage more space due to the on- > disk format when stored this way?
Bytes are pretty much stored just as bytes, with four bytes of overhead for the length field. Larger values (> 2kB) are stored out of line, so there really shouldn't be much concern about storing the image data in the database. It's probably more of a question what makes your processing easier. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/ ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
