Some time ago I had to setup a replicated file system between multiple linux servers. I tried everything I could based on postgres, including large objects, but everything was significantly slower than a regular filesystem.
My conclussion: postgres is not suitable for storing large files efficiently. Do you need that for replication, or just for file storage? Alvaro Aguayo Jefe de Operaciones Open Comb Systems E.I.R.L. Oficina: (+51-1) 3377813 | RPM: #034252 / (+51) 995540103 | RPC: (+51) 954183248 Website: www.ocs.pe Sent from my Sony Xperia™ smartphone ---- Sridhar N Bamandlapally wrote ---- all media files are stored in database with size varies from 1MB - 5GB based on media file types and user-group we storing in different tables, but PostgreSQL store OID/Large-object in single table (pg_largeobject), 90% of database size is with table pg_largeobject due to size limitation BYTEA was not considered Thanks Sridhar On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:05 PM, John R Pierce <pie...@hogranch.com> wrote: > On 3/29/2016 2:13 AM, Sridhar N Bamandlapally wrote: > >> Hi >> >> pg_largeobject is creating performance issues as it grow due to single >> point storage(for all tables) >> >> is there any alternate apart from bytea ? >> >> like configuration large-object-table at table-column level and oid >> PK(primary key) stored at pg_largeobject >> >> > I would as soon use a NFS file store for larger files like images, audio, > videos, or whatever. use SQL for the relational metadata. > > just sayin'.... > > > > -- > john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz > > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general >
