On Oct 13, 2006, at 01:36 , Robert L Mathews wrote:
Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I do this already but have problems since I have
stored arround 130 million files on a server...
> ...
>
MD5 hashes are 32 Bytes long, maybe they change
it to 64 Bytes?
I have already over 2000 co
Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I do this already but have problems since I have
stored arround 130 million files on a server...
> ...
>
MD5 hashes are 32 Bytes long, maybe they change
it to 64 Bytes?
I have already over 2000 collisions and checked
it, that the files are NOT the
In response to Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Am 2006-10-05 21:22:04, schrieb Gregory S. Williamson:
>
> > a sufficiently large hash (MD5 for instance). Of course, there's
>
> I do this already but have problems since I have
> stored arround 130 million files on a server...
>
> > time
Am 2006-10-05 21:22:04, schrieb Gregory S. Williamson:
> a sufficiently large hash (MD5 for instance). Of course, there's
I do this already but have problems since I have
stored arround 130 million files on a server...
> time to create the hash which might be an issue in a high volume
> system.
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 05:08:27PM -0600, Leonel Nunez wrote:
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Storing images in PostgreSQL databases (again)
> User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.8
>
> > Leonel Nunez wrote:
> >>> I think the arguments for keeping stuff inside the database are
>
values.
G
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Jean-Christophe Roux
Sent: Thu 10/5/2006 4:54 PM
To: Alexander Staubo
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Storing images in PostgreSQL databases (again)
Why would I set a bytea column (
006
7:55 PM
To: Alexander Staubo
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Storing
images in PostgreSQL databases (again)
Why would I set a bytea
column (containing picures) as a primary key? Because I want to be sure that
the same image is inserted only once (that requirement
On 10/5/06, Jean-Christophe Roux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why would I set a bytea column (containing picures) as a primary key?
Because I want to be sure that the same image is inserted only once (that
requirement comes from a real project) and using a primary key for that
purpose makes sense
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/05/06 18:54, Jean-Christophe Roux wrote:
> Why would I set a bytea column (containing picures) as a primary
> key? Because I want to be sure that the same image is inserted
> only once (that requirement comes from a real project) and using
> a pr
Jean-Christophe Roux
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.orgSent: Thursday, October 5, 2006 7:35:04 PMSubject: Re: [GENERAL] Storing images in PostgreSQL databases (again)On Oct 6, 2006, at 01:29 , Jean-Christophe Roux wrote:> By the way, is it practical to set a bytea column (c
[EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Jean-Christophe Roux
Sent: Thu 10/5/2006 4:29 PM
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Cc:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Storing images in PostgreSQL databases (again)
Hi,
If the database had built-in functions to manipulate images (make a thumbnail,
add t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/05/06 19:41, Bill Moran wrote:
> "Leonel Nunez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> If the database had built-in functions to manipulate images (make a
>>> thumbnail, add text ont it.., make a montage of two pictures) and I could
>>> write something l
> "Leonel Nunez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > If the database had built-in functions to manipulate images (make a
>> > thumbnail, add text ont it.., make a montage of two pictures) and I
>> could
>> > write something like
>> > select thumbnail(image_field, 100, 100) from images_table
>> > tha
"Leonel Nunez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > If the database had built-in functions to manipulate images (make a
> > thumbnail, add text ont it.., make a montage of two pictures) and I could
> > write something like
> > select thumbnail(image_field, 100, 100) from images_table
> > that would be
> Hi,
> If the database had built-in functions to manipulate images (make a
> thumbnail, add text ont it.., make a montage of two pictures) and I could
> write something like
> select thumbnail(image_field, 100, 100) from images_table
> that would be a good reason to go the db route versus the file
On Oct 6, 2006, at 01:29 , Jean-Christophe Roux wrote:
By the way, is it practical to set a bytea column (containing
pictures) as primary key? That would severely slow down many
operations I guess.
Why would you? It's possible, but completely impractical, since image
data typically exceed
2006 6:30:07 PMSubject: Re: [GENERAL] Storing images in PostgreSQL databases (again)On Oct 5, 2006, at 19:47 , DEV wrote:> I have seen several posts pertaining to the "overhead" difference > in storing> in a db table versus the file system. What is this difference?Well, the
> 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 th
On Oct 5, 2006, at 19:47 , DEV wrote:
I have seen several posts pertaining to the "overhead" difference
in storing
in a db table versus the file system. What is this difference?
Well, there's not much space overhead to speak of. I tested with a
bunch of JPEG files:
$ find files | wc -l
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.
3:57 PM
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Storing images in PostgreSQL databases (again)
TIJod wrote:
> I need to store a large number of images in a
> PostgreSQL database. In my application, this
> represents a few hundreds of thousands of images. The
> size of e
Merlin Moncure wrote:
i'm wondering if anybody has ever attempted to manage large
collections of binary objects inside the database and has advice here.
We have designed and built an image library using Postgres and NFS
servers which currently holds 1.4 million images totalling more than 250Gb
> "Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> ... postgresql will toast all images over a cerain size which
>> is actually pretty efficient although can be a problem if your images
>> are really big.
>
> But any reasonable image format is compressed already (or at least, if
> you are using an u
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Marco Bizzarri") writes:
> Hi.
>
> I can provide some "insight" on the difference between the two interfaces.
>
> AFAIK, the difference is in size of the file you can store, and in the
> interface you have when you want to access.
>
> The size is not important (I think), since y
On 10/5/06, Alexander Staubo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Oct 5, 2006, at 16:18 , Merlin Moncure wrote:
> i'm wondering if anybody has ever attempted to manage large
> collections of binary objects inside the database and has advice here.
We have a production system containing 10,000 images (JP
On Oct 5, 2006, at 16:18 , Merlin Moncure wrote:
I see little value to storing the images in the database. For me
that's
a general statement (I'm sure others will disagree); but
especially in
your case, where you have a high volume and only want to store
them for
a couple days. Why incur
"Merlin Moncure" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ... postgresql will toast all images over a cerain size which
> is actually pretty efficient although can be a problem if your images
> are really big.
But any reasonable image format is compressed already (or at least, if
you are using an uncompresse
On 10/4/06, Guy Rouillier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
TIJod wrote:
> I need to store a large number of images in a
> PostgreSQL database. In my application, this
> represents a few hundreds of thousands of images. The
> size of each image is about 100-200 Ko. There is a
> large turnover in my data
Hi.
I can provide some "insight" on the difference between the two interfaces.
AFAIK, the difference is in size of the file you can store, and in the
interface you have when you want to access.
The size is not important (I think), since you are far below the limit.
For the interface, the bytea
On 10/4/06, TIJod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think I'm about to ask a traditional (almost
religious) question, but I haven't been able to find a
crystal clear answer in the mailing lists so far.
I think the key in deciding this, in your case, is your requirement for space
reclamation:
There
On Oct 4, 2006, at 12:56 PM, Guy Rouillier wrote:
TIJod wrote:
I need to store a large number of images in a
PostgreSQL database. In my application, this
represents a few hundreds of thousands of images. The
size of each image is about 100-200 Ko. There is a
large turnover in my database, i.e.
TIJod wrote:
> I need to store a large number of images in a
> PostgreSQL database. In my application, this
> represents a few hundreds of thousands of images. The
> size of each image is about 100-200 Ko. There is a
> large turnover in my database, i.e. each image stays
> about 1 week in the datab
> Hello,
>
> I think I'm about to ask a traditional (almost
> religious) question, but I haven't been able to find a
> crystal clear answer in the mailing lists so far.
> Thus, here is my question:
>
> I need to store a large number of images in a
> PostgreSQL database. In my application, this
> re
Hello,
I think I'm about to ask a traditional (almost
religious) question, but I haven't been able to find a
crystal clear answer in the mailing lists so far.
Thus, here is my question:
I need to store a large number of images in a
PostgreSQL database. In my application, this
represents a few hun
34 matches
Mail list logo
