Re: Storing images in PostgreSQL databases (again)

> "Merlin Moncure"  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 uncompressed format while worried about disk space then
> you need some time at image processing boot camp).  TOAST isn't going to
> accomplish anything.
>
> 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
 (d) easy to  load balancing


leonel