Re: Database versus filesystem for storing images

Is there any overwhelming reason you can't just stick an apache server
on your DB server?  Unless you expect this thing to get hit *hard*, the
performance of having them both on the same machine is pretty acceptable
(I know, everyone's opinion about what constitutes heavy usage
differs).  If this is a simple intranet application with around 100
users, the performance should be OK.

If I had to write a client-side app to pull images off of a server, I'd
much rather code HTTP GETs into my app than deal with binary data from
the database.  I've done both, and HTTP GETs are much easier.  Bear in
mind I haven't pulled binaries from a database in about 5 years, so
things might be easier now.

imageguy wrote:

>Clodoaldo wrote:
>
>
>>5 Jan 2007 06:59:18 -0800, imageguy <imageguy1206@gmail.com>:
>>
>>
>>>I think I know the answer,
>>>
>>>
>>If you know the answer please tell it as I have read some discussions
>>on the web and although I have decided on a solution I'm still not
>>sure about the best answer, if there is a best answer after all.
>>
>>
>
>Sorry, didn't mean to sound like and expert on this, I am actually
>quite a newbie.  From all of the discussions I have read and even the
>ones in this thread, including your own comments below, it would seem
>that to store the files in the files system you need some sort of
>application erver or :middleware - like a webserver - to handle the
>retreiving and serving of the files.
>My organization is developing a commercial application for "document
>tracking". It is not a Browser application, but rather a more
>traditional "windows" thick client app.
>
>At the present time we do not intend to deploy any sort of "application
>server" - web server, ftp server, and not all of the workstations will
>have access to a consistent network share.
>
>So in this case, it is my understanding that our only real choice is to
>store the documents and images in the database itself.
>
>... unless someone knows of a postgresql function that would allow us
>to "server" the file from the filesystem via the dbserver ??
>
>
>
>
>>>but if you don't have an "application
>>>server" - ie a webserver, etc,
>>>
>>>
>>Yes I have an application server, the Apache server.
>>
>>
>>
>>>and many of the workstations/clients
>>>that need access to the images but may not have access to a network
>>>share,
>>>
>>>
>>network share? I don't understand. The images will be loaded by html
>>pages with the img tag like in <img
>>src="http://domain.com/images/xxx.jpg">
>>
>>
>>
>>>isn't the database the only choice ?
>>>
>>>
>>No. It is one of the choices. The other is to store the images in the
>>file system, in a directory readable by Apache.
>>
>>
>
>See above.  WE are trying to reduce the dependancies on other
>applications to ensure a simple deployment of the application.
>
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>
>               http://archives.postgresql.org/
>
>