On 11/4/08, Chris Puttick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is not necessary to store the image file itself in the database to get
concurrency control, data protection, integrity and management features.
There are a number of good document management systems (Alfresco,
KnowledgeTree) that offer
Lucena, Ivan wrote:
That would reduce the complexity a lot. It would be *just* 80 files. I probably don't even need a separate then in folder. I
could also generate pyramids overlay on those. That would increase the data storage a little:
80 files
80x720x360x250x2x2=2073600
Does anybody
On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 08:57:53PM -0200, Gilberto Camara wrote:
Jim Gray´s paper and much more on
this issue is on his site at MS Research.
Gray has hundreds of papers listed on his Microsoft Research page. As I
said, I'm not claiming that Gray's paper said or did not say something,
merely
On 11/3/08, Gilberto Camara [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
..
Allow me to reiterate my earlier argument, which is
that FOSS4G should **allow** users the option of storing
raster data in a database. Storing images in a database
is not recommended in each and every situation.
The user should
