Re: [GENERAL] Caching and Blobs in PG? Was: Can PG replace redis,amqp, s3 in the future?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От John R Pierce
Тема Re: [GENERAL] Caching and Blobs in PG? Was: Can PG replace redis,amqp, s3 in the future?
Дата
Msg-id 03e986aa-62bd-f3d6-6855-7819bb1ad526@hogranch.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [GENERAL] Caching and Blobs in PG? Was: Can PG replace redis,amqp, s3 in the future?  ("Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-pgsql@hjp.at>)
Ответы Re: [GENERAL] Caching and Blobs in PG? Was: Can PG replace redis,amqp, s3 in the future?  ("Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-pgsql@hjp.at>)
Список pgsql-general
On 5/5/2017 11:28 AM, Peter J. Holzer wrote:
On 2017-05-04 23:08:25 +0200, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
On 03.05.2017 12:57, Thomas Güttler wrote:
Am 02.05.2017 um 05:43 schrieb Jeff Janes:
No.  You can certainly use PostgreSQL to store blobs.  But then, you
need to store the PostgreSQL data **someplace**.
If you don't store it in S3, you have to store it somewhere else.
I don't understand what you mean here. AFAIK storing blobs in PG is not
recommended since it is not very efficient.
Seems like several people here disagree with this conventional wisdom.
I think it depends very much on what level of "efficiency" you need. On
my home server (i5 processor, 32GB RAM, Samsung 850 SSD - not a piece of
junk, but not super powerful either) I can retrieve a small blob from a
100GB table in about 0.1 ms, and for large blobs the speed approaches
200MB/s. For just about everything I'd do on that server (or even at
work) this is easily fast enough.


S3 is often used for terabyte to petabyte file collections.   I would not want to burden my relational database with this.


-- 
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: "Peter J. Holzer"
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [GENERAL] Caching and Blobs in PG? Was: Can PG replace redis,amqp, s3 in the future?
Следующее
От: Tony Finch
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [GENERAL] Can PG replace redis, amqp, s3 in the future?