Re: Storing images in PostgreSQL databases (again)

Leonel Nunez wrote:
>> I think the arguments for keeping stuff inside the database are
>> (a) far easier to maintain transactional semantics for insert/delete,
>> and (b) easier to serve the data out to clients that aren't on the
>> same machine.  You aren't going to find a performance win though.
>>
>
>  (c) easy to replicate

I don't follow that.  Suppose your database minus images is 3 GB, and
your images are another 50 gigabytes.  Which is easier to replicate, 3
or 53?  Put the images on a file server, separate from the DBs - no need
to replicate them.  And if you do want to copy (e.g., your replicated DB
is in a remote location), you can do a simple file system copy to the
corresponding remote file server.

>  (d) easy to  load balancing

If you're load balancing, both databases are in the same location,
right?  In which case you only need one set of images on a central file
server.

--
Guy Rouillier