SEO

PostgreSQL: 8.2

I am looking at the possibility of storing files in some of my database
tables. My concern is obviously performance. I have configured
PostgreSQL to take advantage of Linux file caching. So my PostgreSQL
does not have a large setting for shared_buffers even though I have 24G
of memory. The performance today is very good.



Some questions I have:



What data type should I use for fields that hold files?

Is there anything that I should be aware of when putting files into a
field in a table?

When PostgreSQL accesses a table that has fields that contain files does
it put the fields that contain the files into the shared_buffers memory
area?





Thanks,



Lance Campbell

Project Manager/Software Architect

Web Services at Public Affairs

University of Illinois

217.333.0382

http://webservices.uiuc.edu

On 12/13/07, Campbell, Lance <lance@uiuc.edu> wrote:
> I am looking at the possibility of storing files in some of my database
> tables. My concern is obviously performance. I have configured PostgreSQL
> to take advantage of Linux file caching. So my PostgreSQL does not have a
> large setting for shared_buffers even though I have 24G of memory.

This used to be the recommended way before 8.0. In 8.0, it is
advantageous to give PostgreSQL more buffers. You should still make
some room for the kernel cache.

By "storing files", I assume you mean a lot of data imported from
files. The procs and cons of storing large amounts of data as
PostgreSQL tuples has been debated before. You might want to search
the archives.

My opinion is that PostgreSQL is fine up to a point (let's say 10,000
tuples x 2KB), above which I would merely store references to
file-system objects. Managing these objects can be painful, especially
in a cluster of more than one machine, but at least it's fast and
lightweight.

> What data type should I use for fields that hold files?

PostgreSQL has two ways of storing "large amounts of data" in a single
tuple: variable-length columns, and blobs.

Blobs are divided into chunks and stored in separate tables, one tuple
per chunk, indexed by offset, and PostgreSQL allows random access to
the data. The downside is that they take up more room, they're slower
to create, slower to read from end to end, and I believe there are
some operations (such as function expressions) that don't work on
them. Some replication products, including (the last time I looked)
Slony, does not support replicating blobs. Blobs are not deprecated, I
think, but they feel like they are.

Variable-length columns such as bytea and text support a system called
TOAST, which allow the first few kilobytes of the data to be stored
in-place in the tuple, and the overflow to be stored elsewhere and
potentially compressed. This system is much faster and tighter than
blobs, but does not offer random I/O.

> Is there anything that I should be aware of when putting files into a field
> in a table?

Backup dumps will increase in size in proportion to the size of your
data. PostgreSQL is no speed demon at loading/storing data, so this
might turn out to be the Achilles heel.

> When PostgreSQL accesses a table that has fields that contain files does it
> put the fields that contain the files into the shared_buffers memory area?

I believe so.

Alexander.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq

I did not see much info in the 8.2 documentation on BLOB. I did ready
about "bytea" or binary data type. It seems like it would work for
storing files. I guess I could stick with the OS for file storage but
it is a pain. It would be easier to use the DB.

Thanks,

Lance Campbell
Project Manager/Software Architect
Web Services at Public Affairs
University of Illinois
217.333.0382
http://webservices.uiuc.edu


-----Original Message-----
From: madevilgenius@gmail.com [mailto:madevilgenius@gmail.com] On Behalf
Of Alexander Staubo
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 1:39 PM
To: Campbell, Lance
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Putting files into fields in a table

On 12/13/07, Campbell, Lance <lance@uiuc.edu> wrote:
> I am looking at the possibility of storing files in some of my
database
> tables. My concern is obviously performance. I have configured
PostgreSQL
> to take advantage of Linux file caching. So my PostgreSQL does not
have a
> large setting for shared_buffers even though I have 24G of memory.

This used to be the recommended way before 8.0. In 8.0, it is
advantageous to give PostgreSQL more buffers. You should still make
some room for the kernel cache.

By "storing files", I assume you mean a lot of data imported from
files. The procs and cons of storing large amounts of data as
PostgreSQL tuples has been debated before. You might want to search
the archives.

My opinion is that PostgreSQL is fine up to a point (let's say 10,000
tuples x 2KB), above which I would merely store references to
file-system objects. Managing these objects can be painful, especially
in a cluster of more than one machine, but at least it's fast and
lightweight.

> What data type should I use for fields that hold files?

PostgreSQL has two ways of storing "large amounts of data" in a single
tuple: variable-length columns, and blobs.

Blobs are divided into chunks and stored in separate tables, one tuple
per chunk, indexed by offset, and PostgreSQL allows random access to
the data. The downside is that they take up more room, they're slower
to create, slower to read from end to end, and I believe there are
some operations (such as function expressions) that don't work on
them. Some replication products, including (the last time I looked)
Slony, does not support replicating blobs. Blobs are not deprecated, I
think, but they feel like they are.

Variable-length columns such as bytea and text support a system called
TOAST, which allow the first few kilobytes of the data to be stored
in-place in the tuple, and the overflow to be stored elsewhere and
potentially compressed. This system is much faster and tighter than
blobs, but does not offer random I/O.

> Is there anything that I should be aware of when putting files into a
field
> in a table?

Backup dumps will increase in size in proportion to the size of your
data. PostgreSQL is no speed demon at loading/storing data, so this
might turn out to be the Achilles heel.

> When PostgreSQL accesses a table that has fields that contain files
does it
> put the fields that contain the files into the shared_buffers memory
area?

I believe so.

Alexander.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Campbell, Lance wrote:
> I did not see much info in the 8.2 documentation on BLOB.

That's because we don't call them "blobs". Search for "large objects"
instead:

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/curre...geobjects.html

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.flickr.com/photos/alvherre/
"Executive Executive Summary: The [Windows] Vista Content Protection
specification could very well constitute the longest suicide note in history."
Peter Guttman, http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut00...vista_cost.txt

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

On Dec 13, 2007, at 2:09 PM, Campbell, Lance wrote:

> I did not see much info in the 8.2 documentation on BLOB. I did ready
> about "bytea" or binary data type. It seems like it would work for
> storing files. I guess I could stick with the OS for file storage but
> it is a pain. It would be easier to use the DB.

In postgres they're simply called Large Objects (or LOBs) and there
is a whole chapter devoted to them in Part IV of the manual. Note
that you only need to use this facility if you're going to be storing
data over 1G in size (at which point your limit becomes 2G). What
kind of data are in these files? What gain do you foresee in storing
the files directly in the db (as opposed, say, to storing the paths
to the files in the filesystem)?

Erik Jones

Software Developer | Emma®
erik@myemma.com
800.595.4401 or 615.292.5888
615.292.0777 (fax)

Emma helps organizations everywhere communicate & market in style.
Visit us online at http://www.myemma.com



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Erik,
The advantage with storing things in the database verses the file system
is the number of lines of code. I manage 18 software applications. I
have developed an application that reads in an XML file and will
generate database java code for inserting, updating, selecting and
deleting data. So for me the database is a no brainer. But when I need
to store files that are uploaded by users I have to hand code the
process. It is not hard. It is just time consuming. I want to keep
the amount I can do per hour at a very high level. The less code the
better.

Using a database correctly really saves on the number of lines of code.

Thanks,

Lance Campbell
Project Manager/Software Architect
Web Services at Public Affairs
University of Illinois
217.333.0382
http://webservices.uiuc.edu


-----Original Message-----
From: Erik Jones [mailto:erik@myemma.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2007 2:22 PM
To: Campbell, Lance
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org list
Subject: Re: [PERFORM] Putting files into fields in a table


On Dec 13, 2007, at 2:09 PM, Campbell, Lance wrote:

> I did not see much info in the 8.2 documentation on BLOB. I did ready
> about "bytea" or binary data type. It seems like it would work for
> storing files. I guess I could stick with the OS for file storage but
> it is a pain. It would be easier to use the DB.

In postgres they're simply called Large Objects (or LOBs) and there
is a whole chapter devoted to them in Part IV of the manual. Note
that you only need to use this facility if you're going to be storing
data over 1G in size (at which point your limit becomes 2G). What
kind of data are in these files? What gain do you foresee in storing
the files directly in the db (as opposed, say, to storing the paths
to the files in the filesystem)?

Erik Jones

Software Developer | Emma(r)
erik@myemma.com
800.595.4401 or 615.292.5888
615.292.0777 (fax)

Emma helps organizations everywhere communicate & market in style.
Visit us online at http://www.myemma.com



---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at

http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate