e that you have selected the path that has cost you more.
In the future, an investment on memory for a (let's say) rather small
database should be your first attempt.
Yours,
Rodrigo Madera
On 3/6/07, Alex Deucher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/6/07, Ron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
Hello to all on the list.
I have developed a product that sits between the database and an
application that handles the storage of large binary data.
The system is fast, but I'm feeling bad as to think that I have
completely reinvented the weel on this case.
You see, the engine does just stores
For God's sake buy a mainframe! =o)
On 3/17/06, Michael Stone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 10:44:25PM -0800, Luke Lonergan wrote:
> >You'd be better off with 4 x $10K servers that do 800MB/s from disk each and
> >a Bizgres MPP - then you'd do 3.2GB/s (faster than the SSD) a
I am concerned with performance issues involving the storage of DV on
a database.
I though of some options, which would be the most advised for speed?
1) Pack N frames inside a "container" and store the container to the db.
2) Store each frame in a separate record in the table "frames".
3) (type
Imagine a table named Person with "first_name" and "age".
Now let's make it fancy and put a "mother" and "father" field that is
a reference to the own table (Person). And to get even fuzzier, let's
drop in some siblings:
CREATE TABLE person(
id bigint PRIMARY KEY,
first_name TEXT,
age IN
I have been reading all this technical talk about costs and such that
I don't (_yet_) understand.
Now I'm scared... what's the fastest way to do an equivalent of
count(*) on a table to know how many items it has?
Thanks,
Rodrigo
---(end of broadcast)--
I have a table that holds entries as in a ficticious table Log(id integer, msg text).
Lets say then that I have the program log_tail that has as it´s sole purpose to print newly added data elements.
What is the best solution in terms of performace?
Thank you for your time,
Rodrigo
Ok, thanks for the limits info, but I have that in the manual. Thanks.
But what I really want to know is this:
1) All large objects of all tables inside one DATABASE is kept on only one table. True or false?
Thanks =o)
RodrigoOn 10/25/05, Nörder-Tuitje, Marcus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
o
I
guess, You should check, if a blob field and large object access is
suitable for you - no escaping etc, just raw binary large objects.AFAIK, PQExecParams is not the right solution for You. Refer the "Large object" section:"28.3.5. Writing Data to a Large Object
The functionint
lo_write(PGconn *c
Now this interests me a lot.
Please clarify this:
I have 5000 tables, one for each city:
City1_Photos, City2_Photos, ... City5000_Photos.
Each of these tables are: CREATE TABLE CityN_Photos (location text, lo_id largeobectypeiforgot)
So, what's the limit for these large objects? I heard I coul
I
guess, You should check, if a blob field and large object access is
suitable for you - no escaping etc, just raw binary large objects.AFAIK, PQExecParams is not the right solution for You. Refer the "Large object" section:"28.3.5. Writing Data to a Large Object
The functionint
lo_write(PGconn *c
Hello there,
This is my first post in the list. I have a deep low-level background
on computer programming, but I am totally newbie to sql databases. I am
using postgres because of its commercial license.
My problem is with storing large values. I have a database that stores
large ammounts of dat
12 matches
Mail list logo
