Обсуждение: Storing images in PostgreSQL databases (again)

Hello,

I think I'm about to ask a traditional (almost
religious) question, but I haven't been able to find a
crystal clear answer in the mailing lists so far.
Thus, here is my question:

I need to store a large number of images in a
PostgreSQL database. In my application, this
represents a few hundreds of thousands of images. The
size of each image is about 100-200 Ko. There is a
large turnover in my database, i.e. each image stays
about 1 week in the database, then it is deleted.

Of course, I need to have a relatively fast access to
each one of these images. But more importantly, I need
to periodically delete a large number of images in
batch process. Moreover, the disk space that is used
on the hard-disk to store the images should be kept as
small as possible: Precisely, after the aforementioned
batch deletions, the table that contains the images
should be immediately compacted (I cannot afford the
internal use of a "to be deleted" flag, because of the
large amount of disk space my database requires).

I have three possible implementation choices in
PostgreSQL:

1) Storing the images directly on the disk, and
storing an URI in the database tables (but this would
require a more tricky implementation, and ACID-ity
would be difficult to ensure -- after all, a database
should abstract the internal storage of data, may it
be images).

2) Storing the images in a "bytea" column (but what
about the access times, and the batch deletion
process?).

3) Storing the images as large objects (this sounds
like the best solution to me, but the documentation
lacks clarity about the scope of these large objects).

Finally, my question is what method would you
recommend to me?

I thank you much in advance for your answers!






___________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Mail réinvente le mail ! Découvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail et son interface révolutionnaire.
http://fr.mail.yahoo.com

> Hello,
>
> I think I'm about to ask a traditional (almost
> religious) question, but I haven't been able to find a
> crystal clear answer in the mailing lists so far.
> Thus, here is my question:
>
> I need to store a large number of images in a
> PostgreSQL database. In my application, this
> represents a few hundreds of thousands of images. The
> size of each image is about 100-200 Ko. There is a
> large turnover in my database, i.e. each image stays
> about 1 week in the database, then it is deleted.
>
> Of course, I need to have a relatively fast access to
> each one of these images. But more importantly, I need
> to periodically delete a large number of images in
> batch process. Moreover, the disk space that is used
> on the hard-disk to store the images should be kept as
> small as possible: Precisely, after the aforementioned
> batch deletions, the table that contains the images
> should be immediately compacted (I cannot afford the
> internal use of a "to be deleted" flag, because of the
> large amount of disk space my database requires).
>
> I have three possible implementation choices in
> PostgreSQL:
>
> 1) Storing the images directly on the disk, and
> storing an URI in the database tables (but this would
> require a more tricky implementation, and ACID-ity
> would be difficult to ensure -- after all, a database
> should abstract the internal storage of data, may it
> be images).
>
> 2) Storing the images in a "bytea" column (but what
> about the access times, and the batch deletion
> process?).
>
> 3) Storing the images as large objects (this sounds
> like the best solution to me, but the documentation
> lacks clarity about the scope of these large objects).
>
> Finally, my question is what method would you
> recommend to me?
>
> I thank you much in advance for your answers!
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail réinvente le mail ! Découvrez le nouveau Yahoo! Mail et son
> interface révolutionnaire.
> http://fr.mail.yahoo.com
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>



Encode the image  on  base64  and  inseert on a  text  field

if you use  Bytea   it needs to be encoded  and the size stored will be
more than  base64 encoded

if you store the image on disk  you need to keep the consistency between
the database and the file system


leonel

TIJod wrote:
> I need to store a large number of images in a
> PostgreSQL database. In my application, this
> represents a few hundreds of thousands of images. The
> size of each image is about 100-200 Ko. There is a
> large turnover in my database, i.e. each image stays
> about 1 week in the database, then it is deleted.

I see little value to storing the images in the database.  For me that's
a general statement (I'm sure others will disagree); but especially in
your case, where you have a high volume and only want to store them for
a couple days.  Why incur all the overhead of putting them in the DB?
You can't search on them or sort on them.  I would just store them in
the file system and put a reference in the DB.

> but this wouldrequire a more tricky implementation, and ACID-ity
> would be difficult to ensure -- after all, a database
> should abstract the internal storage of data, may it
> be images).

I can't get excited about this.  First, given the amount of overhead
you'll be avoiding, checking the return code from storing the image in
the file system seems relatively trivial.  Store the image first, and if
you get a failure code, don't store the rest of the data in the DB;
you've just implemented data consistency.  That assumes, of course, that
the image is the only meaningful data you have, which in most situations
is not the case.  Meaning you'd want to store the rest of the data
anyway with a messages saying "image not available."

--
Guy Rouillier

On Oct 4, 2006, at 12:56 PM, Guy Rouillier wrote:

> TIJod wrote:
>> I need to store a large number of images in a
>> PostgreSQL database. In my application, this
>> represents a few hundreds of thousands of images. The
>> size of each image is about 100-200 Ko. There is a
>> large turnover in my database, i.e. each image stays
>> about 1 week in the database, then it is deleted.
>
> I see little value to storing the images in the database.  For me
> that's
> a general statement (I'm sure others will disagree); but especially in
> your case, where you have a high volume and only want to store them
> for
> a couple days.  Why incur all the overhead of putting them in the DB?
> You can't search on them or sort on them.  I would just store them in
> the file system and put a reference in the DB.
>
>> but this wouldrequire a more tricky implementation, and ACID-ity
>> would be difficult to ensure -- after all, a database
>> should abstract the internal storage of data, may it
>> be images).
>
> I can't get excited about this.  First, given the amount of overhead
> you'll be avoiding, checking the return code from storing the image in
> the file system seems relatively trivial.  Store the image first,
> and if
> you get a failure code, don't store the rest of the data in the DB;
> you've just implemented data consistency.  That assumes, of course,
> that
> the image is the only meaningful data you have, which in most
> situations
> is not the case.  Meaning you'd want to store the rest of the data
> anyway with a messages saying "image not available."

Combine that with an on delete trigger that adds the filename
to a deletion queue (within the transaction) and a separate
process that runs through the deletion queue occasionally
and you get something quite useable, while still being able
to use sendfile() to throw the image over the wire rather than
squeezing all that data through the database.

Cheers,
   Steve

On 10/4/06, TIJod <tijod@yahoo.fr> wrote:
> I think I'm about to ask a traditional (almost
> religious) question, but I haven't been able to find a
> crystal clear answer in the mailing lists so far.

I think the key in deciding this, in your case, is your requirement for space
reclamation:

> There is a
> large turnover in my database, i.e. each image stays
> about 1 week in the database, then it is deleted.
> ... But more importantly, I need
> to periodically delete a large number of images in
> batch process. Moreover, the disk space that is used
> on the hard-disk to store the images should be kept as
> small as possible: Precisely, after the aforementioned
> batch deletions, the table that contains the images
> should be immediately compacted (I cannot afford the
> internal use of a "to be deleted" flag, because of the
> large amount of disk space my database requires).

If I understand what postgresql is doing, then DELETE will not
reclaim the space immediately. What happens internally is not
all that different from marking the space as deleted. A VACUUM
will allow that space to be reused, (assuming your free space map
is big enough), and a VACUUM FULL would be necessary to compress
the space away. All of these seem incompatible with your requirements.

I agree with another responder who suggested using the filesystem
for your images.

Jack Orenstein

Hi.

I can provide some "insight" on the difference between the two interfaces.

AFAIK, the difference is in size of the file you can store, and in the
interface you have when you want to access.

The size is not important (I think), since you are far below the limit.

For the interface, the bytea gives you a "query" based interfaces,
while largeobject are able to provide a file based interface.

With Large Object, you can avoid reading the whole object with one
read, or you can even move inside the Large Object, which can be
useful if you have large files stored.

I think there are differences also in how the space is reclaimed, but
my PostgreSQL - Fu stops here.

Regards
Marco

--
Marco Bizzarri
http://notenotturne.blogspot.com/

On 10/4/06, Guy Rouillier <guyr@masergy.com> wrote:
> TIJod wrote:
> > I need to store a large number of images in a
> > PostgreSQL database. In my application, this
> > represents a few hundreds of thousands of images. The
> > size of each image is about 100-200 Ko. There is a
> > large turnover in my database, i.e. each image stays
> > about 1 week in the database, then it is deleted.
>
> I see little value to storing the images in the database.  For me that's
> a general statement (I'm sure others will disagree); but especially in
> your case, where you have a high volume and only want to store them for
> a couple days.  Why incur all the overhead of putting them in the DB?
> You can't search on them or sort on them.  I would just store them in
> the file system and put a reference in the DB.

no, you can't search or sort on them but you can put metadata on
fields and search on that, and you can do things like use RI to delete
images that are associated with other things, etc.  this would
probably fit the OP's methodogy quite nicely.

> > but this wouldrequire a more tricky implementation, and ACID-ity
> > would be difficult to ensure -- after all, a database
> > should abstract the internal storage of data, may it
> > be images).
>
> I can't get excited about this.  First, given the amount of overhead
> you'll be avoiding, checking the return code from storing the image in
> the file system seems relatively trivial.  Store the image first, and if
> you get a failure code, don't store the rest of the data in the DB;
> you've just implemented data consistency.  That assumes, of course, that
> the image is the only meaningful data you have, which in most situations
> is not the case.  Meaning you'd want to store the rest of the data
> anyway with a messages saying "image not available."

i think this topic is interesting and deserves better treatment than
assumptions. 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.  on the downside you have more vacuuming overhead and
postgresql can't match filesystem speed for raw writing.  also you can
pretty much forget decent performance if your code that does the
actual insertion is not in c/c++ and uses the paramaterized api.

on the flip side, you have a central interface, single point of
failure and you don't have to deal with thousands or millions of image
files which can become it's own problem (although solvable). also you
don't have to write plumbing code to get something like atomicity.
PostgreSQL is getting more and more efficeint at moving large streams
in and out of the database and the answer here is not as cut and try
as you might think (historically, it was insane to even attempt it).

i'm wondering if anybody has ever attempted to manage large
collections of binary objects inside the database and has advice here.

merlin

"Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com> 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.

            regards, tom lane

On Oct 5, 2006, at 16:18 , Merlin Moncure wrote:

>> I see little value to storing the images in the database.  For me
>> that's
>> a general statement (I'm sure others will disagree); but
>> especially in
>> your case, where you have a high volume and only want to store
>> them for
>> a couple days.  Why incur all the overhead of putting them in the DB?
>> You can't search on them or sort on them.  I would just store them in
>> the file system and put a reference in the DB.
>
> no, you can't search or sort on them but you can put metadata on
> fields and search on that, and you can do things like use RI to delete
> images that are associated with other things, etc.  this would
> probably fit the OP's methodogy quite nicely.

I second this sentiment; there is a lot to be said for keeping your
data together in a unified storage/retrieval system with ACID
semantics. There is nothing inherently wrong about this model.

[...]
> i'm wondering if anybody has ever attempted to manage large
> collections of binary objects inside the database and has advice here.

We have a production system containing 10,000 images (JPEG and PNG of
various sizes) totaling roughly 4GBs. We have Lighttpd running
against a couple of Rails processes which crop, scale and convert
images on the fly using ImageMagick; converted images are cached in
the file system and subsequently served directly by Lighttpd.
Functionally I have absolutely no quibbles with this system;
PostgreSQL stores the data smoothly and everything works as designed.

Performance-wise, I'm not sure; the amount of data seems to put a
certain load on the database server, though it's impossible to tell
how much. Backups are hell, taking hours and hours to do just a
single dump of the database. Rails' PostgreSQL adapter uses SQL for
inserts and quotes every byte as an octal escape sequence; storing a
single image can take several seconds. Single-image retrieval is
similarly slow, but since the adapter uses bindings that talk
directly to libpq4, I believe it's caused by the overall load on the
database.

Because of this, we see no recourse but to move the images into the
file system. Since our cluster consists of three separate machines
all running the same Rails application, with no dedicated box
handling the image storage, such a solution requires the use of NFS
or other type of shared storage for centralized image storage; we're
not sure yet about what we will end up with.

Alexander.

On 10/5/06, Alexander Staubo <alex@purefiction.net> wrote:
> On Oct 5, 2006, at 16:18 , Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > i'm wondering if anybody has ever attempted to manage large
> > collections of binary objects inside the database and has advice here.
>
> We have a production system containing 10,000 images (JPEG and PNG of
> various sizes) totaling roughly 4GBs. We have Lighttpd running
> against a couple of Rails processes which crop, scale and convert
> images on the fly using ImageMagick; converted images are cached in
> the file system and subsequently served directly by Lighttpd.
> Functionally I have absolutely no quibbles with this system;
> PostgreSQL stores the data smoothly and everything works as designed.
>
> Performance-wise, I'm not sure; the amount of data seems to put a
> certain load on the database server, though it's impossible to tell
> how much. Backups are hell, taking hours and hours to do just a

i admit, backups could be a problem. maybe pitr is the answer.  (dump
style backups are a problem for any big database)

> single dump of the database. Rails' PostgreSQL adapter uses SQL for
> inserts and quotes every byte as an octal escape sequence; storing a

ouch...the only way to do this quickly imo is to send in raw binary
data directly to the database using parameterized...this eliminates
both the escaping and the unescaping step. likewise the data should be
pulled out binary (this will liekly be several times faster).

> single image can take several seconds. Single-image retrieval is
> similarly slow, but since the adapter uses bindings that talk
> directly to libpq4, I believe it's caused by the overall load on the
> database.
>
> Because of this, we see no recourse but to move the images into the
> file system. Since our cluster consists of three separate machines
> all running the same Rails application, with no dedicated box
> handling the image storage, such a solution requires the use of NFS
> or other type of shared storage for centralized image storage; we're
> not sure yet about what we will end up with.

cant fault you for that decision, web applications are usually pretty
aggressive on caching.  they also ususally fit pretty well in the
various replication technlogies as well...something to consider.

merlin

marco.bizzarri@gmail.com ("Marco Bizzarri") writes:
> Hi.
>
> I can provide some "insight" on the difference between the two interfaces.
>
> AFAIK, the difference is in size of the file you can store, and in the
> interface you have when you want to access.
>
> The size is not important (I think), since you are far below the limit.
>
> For the interface, the bytea gives you a "query" based interfaces,
> while largeobject are able to provide a file based interface.
>
> With Large Object, you can avoid reading the whole object with one
> read, or you can even move inside the Large Object, which can be
> useful if you have large files stored.
>
> I think there are differences also in how the space is reclaimed, but
> my PostgreSQL - Fu stops here.

That seems a reasonable explanation...

There is another thing that is worth observing for the "store data as
an ordinary column" idea...

Very Large Columns are stored in what is called a TOAST table.

Consider the following table:

tbig@[local]:5832=# \d foo
                          Table "public.foo"
  Column  |  Type   |                    Modifiers
----------+---------+--------------------------------------------------
 id       | integer | not null default nextval('foo_id_seq'::regclass)
 name     | text    |
 contents | text    |
Indexes:
    "foo_pkey" PRIMARY KEY, btree (id)

tbig@[local]:5832=# vacuum verbose foo;
INFO:  vacuuming "public.foo"
INFO:  index "foo_pkey" now contains 3 row versions in 2 pages
DETAIL:  0 index pages have been deleted, 0 are currently reusable.
CPU 0.00s/0.00u sec elapsed 0.00 sec.
INFO:  "foo": found 0 removable, 3 nonremovable row versions in 1 pages
DETAIL:  0 dead row versions cannot be removed yet.
There were 12 unused item pointers.
0 pages are entirely empty.
CPU 0.00s/0.00u sec elapsed 0.00 sec.
INFO:  vacuuming "pg_toast.pg_toast_113203"
INFO:  index "pg_toast_113203_index" now contains 54 row versions in 2 pages
DETAIL:  0 index pages have been deleted, 0 are currently reusable.
CPU 0.00s/0.00u sec elapsed 0.00 sec.
INFO:  "pg_toast_113203": found 0 removable, 54 nonremovable row versions in 14 pages
DETAIL:  0 dead row versions cannot be removed yet.
There were 5 unused item pointers.
0 pages are entirely empty.
CPU 0.00s/0.00u sec elapsed 0.00 sec.
VACUUM

tbig@[local]:5832=# select id, name, length(contents) from foo;
 id | name  | length
----+-------+---------
  1 | file1 | 1860342
  2 | file2 | 1860342
  3 | file3 | 1860342
(3 rows)

The "contents" columns contain 1.8MB of data.

Note that if you run a query that doesn't access the "contents"
columns, they never get drawn in.  What the table 'physically' looks
like is rather like:

 id | name  | toast pointer
----+-------+--------------
  1 | file1 | 1341234
  2 | file2 | 3241341
  3 | file3 | 3421892

[where those pointers point into the "toast" table].

You can get decent efficiency out of that...
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "ofni.sesabatadxunil" "@" "enworbbc"))
http://cbbrowne.com/info/linuxdistributions.html
"...[Linux's] capacity to talk via any medium except smoke signals."
-- Dr. Greg Wettstein, Roger Maris Cancer Center

> "Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com> 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

I appologize for duplicate posting, but I am not sure
if this is getting posted to the news group.

Problem:
PostgreSQL "Service" is not runing on a Linux Box,
but I have a database on the Linux Box, that I want
to relocate to another machine, Windows or Linux.

Question:
What files do I need to transfer to get this to work?

Brian J. Erickson <ericksbr@infocon-inc.com> schrieb:

> I appologize for duplicate posting, but I am not sure
> if this is getting posted to the news group.
>
> Problem:
> PostgreSQL "Service" is not runing on a Linux Box,

Why not?


> but I have a database on the Linux Box, that I want
> to relocate to another machine, Windows or Linux.
>
> Question:
> What files do I need to transfer to get this to work?

Start the database, do a pg_dumpall, and build on the new machine the db
from this dump.


Andreas
--
Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely
unintentional side effect.                              (Linus Torvalds)
"If I was god, I would recompile penguin with --enable-fly."    (unknow)
Kaufbach, Saxony, Germany, Europe.              N 51.05082°, E 13.56889°

Merlin Moncure wrote:
> i'm wondering if anybody has ever attempted to manage large
> collections of binary objects inside the database and has advice here.

We have designed and built an image library using Postgres and NFS
servers which currently holds 1.4 million images totalling more than 250Gb.

Not having the images in the database keeps the database lightweight,
and allows us to use Slony to replicate - something we could not do with
blob data (I believe).

If you want to scale up, I think it is worth keeping the images out of
the database. Just use the database to store the filename/location and
meta data associated with each image. Otherwise the images bloat the
database...

Backups are small (the meta data is lightweight), we can use slony for
data redundancy. The NFS servers are rsnyc'd to physically back the
images up.

This setup means that we have to have a layer above the database which
keeps the database and images on the file system in sync. The database
and java layer above with the NFS servers have effectively allowed us to
build a virtualized file system for storing images and meta data. We can
plug in more NFS shares as our storage requirements grow, and the
database keeps tracks of disk usage within each physical disk volume.

This setup appears to give us good performance and hasn't been too
difficult to maintain or administer.

For a setup this size which is growing daily, storing the images in the
database was not really a sensible option. Hoever, with a smaller setup,
keeping the images in the database definitely keeps things simpler though...

John

I have seen several posts pertaining to the "overhead" difference in storing
in a db table versus the file system.  What is this difference?

I also think the decision as store in a db table or file system is looking
at how the files will be accessed.  If all the clients are on the same
network as the server using the servers file system is viable. If though
your clients are on different networks then storing in the db may be a
better option.



-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org
[mailto:pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Guy Rouillier
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 3:57 PM
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Storing images in PostgreSQL databases (again)

TIJod wrote:
> I need to store a large number of images in a
> PostgreSQL database. In my application, this
> represents a few hundreds of thousands of images. The
> size of each image is about 100-200 Ko. There is a
> large turnover in my database, i.e. each image stays
> about 1 week in the database, then it is deleted.

I see little value to storing the images in the database.  For me that's
a general statement (I'm sure others will disagree); but especially in
your case, where you have a high volume and only want to store them for
a couple days.  Why incur all the overhead of putting them in the DB?
You can't search on them or sort on them.  I would just store them in
the file system and put a reference in the DB.

> but this wouldrequire a more tricky implementation, and ACID-ity
> would be difficult to ensure -- after all, a database
> should abstract the internal storage of data, may it
> be images).

I can't get excited about this.  First, given the amount of overhead
you'll be avoiding, checking the return code from storing the image in
the file system seems relatively trivial.  Store the image first, and if
you get a failure code, don't store the rest of the data in the DB;
you've just implemented data consistency.  That assumes, of course, that
the image is the only meaningful data you have, which in most situations
is not the case.  Meaning you'd want to store the rest of the data
anyway with a messages saying "image not available."

--
Guy Rouillier

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

>> Problem:
>> PostgreSQL "Service" is not runing on a Linux Box,
> Why not?
The file "/etc/mtab" has been corrupted, when start
postgresql the "Service" dies because of an "input/output"
error.

Therefore, "pg_dumpall' won't work.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Andreas Kretschmer" <akretschmer@spamfence.net>
To: <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 8:52 AM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Database Transfer between machines(again)


Brian J. Erickson <ericksbr@infocon-inc.com> schrieb:

> I appologize for duplicate posting, but I am not sure
> if this is getting posted to the news group.
>
> Problem:
> PostgreSQL "Service" is not runing on a Linux Box,

Why not?


> but I have a database on the Linux Box, that I want
> to relocate to another machine, Windows or Linux.
>
> Question:
> What files do I need to transfer to get this to work?

Start the database, do a pg_dumpall, and build on the new machine the db
from this dump.


Andreas
--
Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely
unintentional side effect.                              (Linus Torvalds)
"If I was god, I would recompile penguin with --enable-fly."    (unknow)
Kaufbach, Saxony, Germany, Europe.              N 51.05082°, E 13.56889°

---------------------------(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

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10/05/06 14:50, Brian J. Erickson wrote:
>>> Problem:
>>> PostgreSQL "Service" is not runing on a Linux Box,
>> Why not?
> The file "/etc/mtab" has been corrupted, when start
> postgresql the "Service" dies because of an "input/output"
> error.
>
> Therefore, "pg_dumpall' won't work.

Doesn't /etc/mtab get recreated at boot?

And since it's a text file, can't someone fix it with $EDITOR?

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
are mud people.
However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFJXFbS9HxQb37XmcRAqSZAJsG2iHXySUdiooXVun5hJsX6zfEPwCggAEb
OjDEKQ5VErzaRv+UcH0P/Kk=
=vs7r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Leonel Nunez wrote:
>> 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

I don't follow that.  Suppose your database minus images is 3 GB, and
your images are another 50 gigabytes.  Which is easier to replicate, 3
or 53?  Put the images on a file server, separate from the DBs - no need
to replicate them.  And if you do want to copy (e.g., your replicated DB
is in a remote location), you can do a simple file system copy to the
corresponding remote file server.

>  (d) easy to  load balancing

If you're load balancing, both databases are in the same location,
right?  In which case you only need one set of images on a central file
server.

--
Guy Rouillier

On Oct 5, 2006, at 19:47 , DEV wrote:

> I have seen several posts pertaining to the "overhead" difference
> in storing
> in a db table versus the file system.  What is this difference?

Well, there's not much space overhead to speak of. I tested with a
bunch of JPEG files:

$ find files | wc -l
     2724
$ du -hs files
213M    files

With an empty database and the following schema:

   create table files (id serial, data bytea);
   alter table files alter column data set storage external;

When loaded into the database:

$ du -hs /opt/local/var/db/postgresql/base/16386
223M    /opt/local/var/db/postgresql/base/16386

On my MacIntel with PostgreSQL from DarwinPorts -- a configuration/
port where PostgreSQL performance does *not* shine, incidentally --
PostgreSQL can insert the image data at a pretty stable 2.5MB/s. It's
still around 30 times slower than the file system at reading the
data. (I would love to run a benchmark to provide detailed timings,
but that would tie up my laptop for too long.)

Alexander.

> Leonel Nunez wrote:
>>> 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
>
> I don't follow that.  Suppose your database minus images is 3 GB, and
> your images are another 50 gigabytes.  Which is easier to replicate, 3
> or 53?  Put the images on a file server, separate from the DBs - no need
> to replicate them.

yes 3GB are  *faster*  han 53 gb  but is the same as easy as 3 or 100

> And if you do want to copy (e.g., your replicated DB
> is in a remote location), you can do a simple file system copy to the
> corresponding remote file server.

this is done with  automatic  replication  as  the  data  is  inserted,
deleted  or  updated.

When I say  data  I mean  records  , images, pdfs and all the objects I use

>
>>  (d) easy to  load balancing
>
> If you're load balancing, both databases are in the same location,
> right?  In which case you only need one set of images on a central file
> server.
>

the  bigger data are the images  so  1 set of images is not a real
solution for me.

with all the data stored on the database gives me more scalability,
consistency, flexibility  than  putting  the "files"  on the disk and
"data" on the database



> --
> Guy Rouillier
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>
>                http://archives.postgresql.org
>


Leonel

> And since it's a text file, can't someone fix it with $EDITOR?

I tried to edit the file, but I get the Input/Output error.

The recommendatation was to re-install the OS.
However, I DO NOT want to lose my database,
so I am tring to backup the database.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Johnson" <ron.l.johnson@cox.net>
To: <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Database Transfer between machines(again)


> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 10/05/06 14:50, Brian J. Erickson wrote:
> >>> Problem:
> >>> PostgreSQL "Service" is not runing on a Linux Box,
> >> Why not?
> > The file "/etc/mtab" has been corrupted, when start
> > postgresql the "Service" dies because of an "input/output"
> > error.
> >
> > Therefore, "pg_dumpall' won't work.
>
> Doesn't /etc/mtab get recreated at boot?
>
> And since it's a text file, can't someone fix it with $EDITOR?
>
> - --
> Ron Johnson, Jr.
> Jefferson LA  USA
>
> Is "common sense" really valid?
> For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
> whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
> are mud people.
> However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFFJXFbS9HxQb37XmcRAqSZAJsG2iHXySUdiooXVun5hJsX6zfEPwCggAEb
> OjDEKQ5VErzaRv+UcH0P/Kk=
> =vs7r
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
>                http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10/05/06 18:10, Brian J. Erickson wrote:
>> And since it's a text file, can't someone fix it with $EDITOR?
>
> I tried to edit the file, but I get the Input/Output error.
>
> The recommendatation was to re-install the OS.
> However, I DO NOT want to lose my database,
> so I am tring to backup the database.

Booting from Knoppix should let you fix it.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
are mud people.
However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFJZEoS9HxQb37XmcRAhGVAJ0YQzP6+5jDJO4/kwdw44GxVRig4QCfYGNh
/mfxBi9tNKKjMtkeYsbU4S0=
=e1v8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Oct 5, 2006, at 19:10 , Brian J. Erickson wrote:

>> And since it's a text file, can't someone fix it with $EDITOR?
>
> I tried to edit the file, but I get the Input/Output error.
>
> The recommendatation was to re-install the OS.
> However, I DO NOT want to lose my database,
> so I am tring to backup the database.

You can boot from any rescue CD, mount the partition, copy the
database directory away and then copy it back once you have
reinstalled. This is safe because it is on the same machine. It is
not safe to copy the database to some arbitrary computer and expect
it to run. Make sure to match the database version. Good luck!

-M

On Oct 6, 2006, at 01:29 , Jean-Christophe Roux wrote:

> By the way, is it practical to set a bytea column (containing
> pictures) as primary key? That would severely slow down many
> operations I guess.

Why would you? It's possible, but completely impractical, since image
data typically exceeds the index page size. Moreover, are you really
going to retrieve an image row by its image data?

Alexander.

> Hi,
> If the database had built-in functions to manipulate images (make a
> thumbnail, add text ont it.., make a montage of two pictures) and I could
> write something like
> select thumbnail(image_field, 100, 100) from images_table
> that would be a good reason to go the db route versus the filesystem
> route. A database does more then storing data, it makes convenient  to
> play with them. Once my pictures are stored in the database, how do I make
> thumbnails for instance? Maybe the solution already exists; I am curious
> here. Is there a way to integrate ImageMagick into a PostgreSQL workflow?
> By the way, is it practical to set a bytea column (containing pictures) as
> primary key? That would severely slow down many operations I guess.
> JCR
>
>

With Python   and  the  python imaging library   you can do  this  :

image is a bytea  field

curs = conn.cursor ()
curs.execute( "select image from images where name = %s" ,(thename, ))
row = curs.fetchone()
if row:
   im = Image.open (StringIO.StringIO(row[0]))
   im.thumbnail (160,120 )
   imagetmp = StringIO.StringIO()
   im.save ( imagetmp  , "JPEG")
   print ("Content-type: image/jpeg\n\n")
   print ( imagetmp.getvalue())




with this you get your image  to the browser  thumbnailed
without touch  the filesystem

that's all


Leonel

"Leonel Nunez" <lnunez@enelserver.com> wrote:
>
> > If the database had built-in functions to manipulate images (make a
> > thumbnail, add text ont it.., make a montage of two pictures) and I could
> > write something like
> > select thumbnail(image_field, 100, 100) from images_table
> > that would be a good reason to go the db route versus the filesystem
> > route.

<snip>

> With Python   and  the  python imaging library   you can do  this  :
>
> image is a bytea  field
>
> curs = conn.cursor ()
> curs.execute( "select image from images where name = %s" ,(thename, ))
> row = curs.fetchone()
> if row:
>    im = Image.open (StringIO.StringIO(row[0]))
>    im.thumbnail (160,120 )
>    imagetmp = StringIO.StringIO()
>    im.save ( imagetmp  , "JPEG")
>    print ("Content-type: image/jpeg\n\n")
>    print ( imagetmp.getvalue())

I think part of the point, which you missed, is the convenience of having
the thumbnailing as part of the SQL language by making it a stored
procedure.

I did a presentation for WPLUG not too long ago where I created C
functions in Postgres compiled against the GSOAP library that allowed
you to make simple SOAP calls in SQL within PostgreSQL.  Neat stuff.

The problem with creating those kinds of functions is the CPU overhead.
We'll be generating the thumbnails and storing them in a "thumbnail"
field in the record, so we don't have to regenerate the thumbnail each
time it's needed.

BTW: our reason for keeping the thumbnails in fields is so they can be
replicated with Slony along with the rest of the database.

--
Bill Moran

We meddle.  People don't like to be meddled with.  We tell them what to do,
what to think.  Don't run, don't walk.  We're in their homes and in their
heads and we haven't the right.

        River Tam

AgentM wrote:
>
> On Oct 5, 2006, at 19:10 , Brian J. Erickson wrote:
>
>>> And since it's a text file, can't someone fix it with $EDITOR?
>>
>> I tried to edit the file, but I get the Input/Output error.
>>

O.k. hold on... are you getting any errors in /var/log/messages?

Joshua D. Drake




>> The recommendatation was to re-install the OS.
>> However, I DO NOT want to lose my database,
>> so I am tring to backup the database.
>
> You can boot from any rescue CD, mount the partition, copy the database
> directory away and then copy it back once you have reinstalled. This is
> safe because it is on the same machine. It is not safe to copy the
> database to some arbitrary computer and expect it to run. Make sure to
> match the database version. Good luck!
>
> -M
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>
>               http://archives.postgresql.org
>


--

   === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
   Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
             http://www.commandprompt.com/

> "Leonel Nunez" <lnunez@enelserver.com> wrote:
>>
>> > If the database had built-in functions to manipulate images (make a
>> > thumbnail, add text ont it.., make a montage of two pictures) and I
>> could
>> > write something like
>> > select thumbnail(image_field, 100, 100) from images_table
>> > that would be a good reason to go the db route versus the filesystem
>> > route.
>
> <snip>
>
>> With Python   and  the  python imaging library   you can do  this  :
>>
>> image is a bytea  field
>>
>> curs = conn.cursor ()
>> curs.execute( "select image from images where name = %s" ,(thename, ))
>> row = curs.fetchone()
>> if row:
>>    im = Image.open (StringIO.StringIO(row[0]))
>>    im.thumbnail (160,120 )
>>    imagetmp = StringIO.StringIO()
>>    im.save ( imagetmp  , "JPEG")
>>    print ("Content-type: image/jpeg\n\n")
>>    print ( imagetmp.getvalue())
>
> I think part of the point, which you missed, is the convenience of having
> the thumbnailing as part of the SQL language by making it a stored
> procedure.
>
> I did a presentation for WPLUG not too long ago where I created C
> functions in Postgres compiled against the GSOAP library that allowed
> you to make simple SOAP calls in SQL within PostgreSQL.  Neat stuff.
>
> The problem with creating those kinds of functions is the CPU overhead.
> We'll be generating the thumbnails and storing them in a "thumbnail"
> field in the record, so we don't have to regenerate the thumbnail each
> time it's needed.
>
> BTW: our reason for keeping the thumbnails in fields is so they can be
> replicated with Slony along with the rest of the database.
>
> --
> Bill Moran
>
> We meddle.  People don't like to be meddled with.  We tell them what to
> do,
> what to think.  Don't run, don't walk.  We're in their homes and in their
> heads and we haven't the right.
>
>         River Tam
>
>



you are 100%  right

Leonel

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10/05/06 19:41, Bill Moran wrote:
> "Leonel Nunez" <lnunez@enelserver.com> wrote:
>>> If the database had built-in functions to manipulate images (make a
>>> thumbnail, add text ont it.., make a montage of two pictures) and I could
>>> write something like
>>> select thumbnail(image_field, 100, 100) from images_table
>>> that would be a good reason to go the db route versus the filesystem
>>> route.
>
> <snip>
>
>> With Python   and  the  python imaging library   you can do  this  :
>>
>> image is a bytea  field
>>
>> curs = conn.cursor ()
>> curs.execute( "select image from images where name = %s" ,(thename, ))
>> row = curs.fetchone()
>> if row:
>>    im = Image.open (StringIO.StringIO(row[0]))
>>    im.thumbnail (160,120 )
>>    imagetmp = StringIO.StringIO()
>>    im.save ( imagetmp  , "JPEG")
>>    print ("Content-type: image/jpeg\n\n")
>>    print ( imagetmp.getvalue())
>
> I think part of the point, which you missed, is the convenience of having
> the thumbnailing as part of the SQL language by making it a stored
> procedure.

Would untrusted pl/python be able to do this?

> I did a presentation for WPLUG not too long ago where I created C
> functions in Postgres compiled against the GSOAP library that allowed
> you to make simple SOAP calls in SQL within PostgreSQL.  Neat stuff.
>
> The problem with creating those kinds of functions is the CPU overhead.
> We'll be generating the thumbnails and storing them in a "thumbnail"
> field in the record, so we don't have to regenerate the thumbnail each
> time it's needed.
>
> BTW: our reason for keeping the thumbnails in fields is so they can be
> replicated with Slony along with the rest of the database.
>


- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
are mud people.
However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFJbVOS9HxQb37XmcRAoFXAKCy8+MIMuWCAaxeJyvijAVGP/RwhACgzO3T
Q1pruQgrFSvsdiUEwtLvgDk=
=XZD2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

FWIW, the company I work for stores its terrabytes of imagery on disk, using a database to track them (spatial
coordinates,metadata, location, etc.); I have worked on projects in which we stored images in a database (blobs in
Informix)and it worked fine. Both approaches can have their merits. 

Personally, I'd do thumbnails on intake and handle them on their own, either on disk on in the db. But I have
preferencefor a preprocessing data so runtime response is maximized. 

Assuming you don't have access to a blade/suite of functions that allow you to use the image in the database as a
usefuldata type (Informix at least used ot have a blade that did this), you can still use informtation about the image
asa primary key, to wit, a sufficiently large hash (MD5 for instance). Of course, there's time to create the hash which
mightbe an issue in a high volume system. Extending a hash with some other data (date ?) can considerably decrease the
chanceof collisions. It's still a longish key, but workable I suspect (untested, we used an artificial key, a serial). 

$0.02 worth ...

Greg Williamson
DBA
GlobeXplorer LLC


-----Original Message-----
From:    pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org on behalf of Jean-Christophe Roux
Sent:    Thu 10/5/2006 4:29 PM
To:    pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Cc:
Subject:    Re: [GENERAL] Storing images in PostgreSQL databases (again)

Hi,
If the database had built-in functions to manipulate images (make a thumbnail, add text ont it.., make a montage of two
pictures)and I could write something like  
select thumbnail(image_field, 100, 100) from images_table
that would be a good reason to go the db route versus the filesystem route. A database does more then storing data, it
makesconvenient  to play with them. Once my pictures are stored in the database, how do I make thumbnails for instance?
Maybethe solution already exists; I am curious here. Is there a way to integrate ImageMagick into a PostgreSQL
workflow?
By the way, is it practical to set a bytea column (containing pictures) as primary key? That would severely slow down
manyoperations I guess.  
JCR


----- Original Message ----
From: Alexander Staubo <alex@purefiction.net>
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Cc: DEV <dev@umpa-us.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2006 6:30:07 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Storing images in PostgreSQL databases (again)

On Oct 5, 2006, at 19:47 , DEV wrote:

> I have seen several posts pertaining to the "overhead" difference
> in storing
> in a db table versus the file system.  What is this difference?

Well, there's not much space overhead to speak of. I tested with a
bunch of JPEG files:

$ find files | wc -l
     2724
$ du -hs files
213M    files

With an empty database and the following schema:

   create table files (id serial, data bytea);
   alter table files alter column data set storage external;

When loaded into the database:

$ du -hs /opt/local/var/db/postgresql/base/16386
223M    /opt/local/var/db/postgresql/base/16386

On my MacIntel with PostgreSQL from DarwinPorts -- a configuration/
port where PostgreSQL performance does *not* shine, incidentally --
PostgreSQL can insert the image data at a pretty stable 2.5MB/s. It's
still around 30 times slower than the file system at reading the
data. (I would love to run a benchmark to provide detailed timings,
but that would tie up my laptop for too long.)

Alexander.

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

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









-------------------------------------------------------
Click link below if it is SPAM gsw@globexplorer.com

"https://mailscanner.globexplorer.com/dspam/dspam.cgi?signatureID=452593f911951950113718&user=gsw@globexplorer.com&retrain=spam&template=history&history_page=1"
!DSPAM:452593f911951950113718!
-------------------------------------------------------

> > You can boot from any rescue CD, mount the partition, copy the database
> > directory away and then copy it back once you have reinstalled. This is
> > safe because it is on the same machine. It is not safe to copy the
> > database to some arbitrary computer and expect it to run.
That is basically the plan but I want to make sure that I have all of the
data.

> O.k. hold on... are you getting any errors in /var/log/messages?
Here is some of the "/var/log/messages" file
-------------------------------------------Begin----------------------------
----------------------
Oct  6 07:57:27 Info1A kernel: PCI: Using configuration type 1
Oct  6 07:57:27 Info1A kernel: PCI: Probing PCI hardware
Oct  6 07:57:27 Info1A mount: mount: can't open /etc/mtab for writing:
Input/output error
Oct  6 07:57:27 Info1A kernel: PCI: Probing PCI hardware (bus 00)
Oct  6 07:57:27 Info1A netfs: Mounting other filesystems:  failed
.
.
.
Oct  6 07:57:33 Info1A su(pam_unix)[1229]: session opened for user postgres
by (uid=0)
Oct  6 07:57:33 Info1A su(pam_unix)[1229]: session closed for user postgres
Oct  6 07:57:34 Info1A postgresql: Starting postgresql service:  failed
---------------------------------------------End----------------------------
---------------------



----- Original Message -----
From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
To: "AgentM" <agentm@themactionfaction.com>
Cc: "PostgreSQL Mailing lists" <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Database Transfer between machines(again)


> AgentM wrote:
> >
> > On Oct 5, 2006, at 19:10 , Brian J. Erickson wrote:
> >
> >>> And since it's a text file, can't someone fix it with $EDITOR?
> >>
> >> I tried to edit the file, but I get the Input/Output error.
> >>
>
> O.k. hold on... are you getting any errors in /var/log/messages?
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
>
>
>
> >> The recommendatation was to re-install the OS.
> >> However, I DO NOT want to lose my database,
> >> so I am tring to backup the database.
> >
> > You can boot from any rescue CD, mount the partition, copy the database
> > directory away and then copy it back once you have reinstalled. This is
> > safe because it is on the same machine. It is not safe to copy the
> > database to some arbitrary computer and expect it to run. Make sure to
> > match the database version. Good luck!
> >
> > -M
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
> >
> >               http://archives.postgresql.org
> >
>
>
> --
>
>    === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
> Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
>    Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
>              http://www.commandprompt.com/
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
>                http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
>

Brian J. Erickson wrote:
>>> You can boot from any rescue CD, mount the partition, copy the database
>>> directory away and then copy it back once you have reinstalled. This is
>>> safe because it is on the same machine. It is not safe to copy the
>>> database to some arbitrary computer and expect it to run.
> That is basically the plan but I want to make sure that I have all of the
> data.
>
>> O.k. hold on... are you getting any errors in /var/log/messages?
> Here is some of the "/var/log/messages" file


That's odd. Have you tried removing /etc/mtab manually and rebooting?
does the problem still occur? As far as PostgreSQL... you need to look
in to postgresql logs.

Did you compile from source? What version of Linux is this?

Joshua D. Drake


> -------------------------------------------Begin----------------------------
> ----------------------
> Oct  6 07:57:27 Info1A kernel: PCI: Using configuration type 1
> Oct  6 07:57:27 Info1A kernel: PCI: Probing PCI hardware
> Oct  6 07:57:27 Info1A mount: mount: can't open /etc/mtab for writing:
> Input/output error
> Oct  6 07:57:27 Info1A kernel: PCI: Probing PCI hardware (bus 00)
> Oct  6 07:57:27 Info1A netfs: Mounting other filesystems:  failed
> .
> .
> .
> Oct  6 07:57:33 Info1A su(pam_unix)[1229]: session opened for user postgres
> by (uid=0)
> Oct  6 07:57:33 Info1A su(pam_unix)[1229]: session closed for user postgres
> Oct  6 07:57:34 Info1A postgresql: Starting postgresql service:  failed
> ---------------------------------------------End----------------------------
> ---------------------
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
> To: "AgentM" <agentm@themactionfaction.com>
> Cc: "PostgreSQL Mailing lists" <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 5:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Database Transfer between machines(again)
>
>
>> AgentM wrote:
>>> On Oct 5, 2006, at 19:10 , Brian J. Erickson wrote:
>>>
>>>>> And since it's a text file, can't someone fix it with $EDITOR?
>>>> I tried to edit the file, but I get the Input/Output error.
>>>>
>> O.k. hold on... are you getting any errors in /var/log/messages?
>>
>> Joshua D. Drake
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> The recommendatation was to re-install the OS.
>>>> However, I DO NOT want to lose my database,
>>>> so I am tring to backup the database.
>>> You can boot from any rescue CD, mount the partition, copy the database
>>> directory away and then copy it back once you have reinstalled. This is
>>> safe because it is on the same machine. It is not safe to copy the
>>> database to some arbitrary computer and expect it to run. Make sure to
>>> match the database version. Good luck!
>>>
>>> -M
>>>
>>> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>>> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>>>
>>>               http://archives.postgresql.org
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>    === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
>> Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
>>    Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
>>              http://www.commandprompt.com/
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>>
>>                http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
>                http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
>


--

   === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
   Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
             http://www.commandprompt.com/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10/05/06 18:54, Jean-Christophe Roux wrote:
> Why would I set a bytea column (containing picures) as a primary
> key? Because I want to be sure that the same image is inserted
> only once (that requirement comes from a real project) and using
> a primary key for that purpose makes sense to me.

A hash function makes better sense.  SHA-1 creates a 20 byte string
that is the digest of the file.  Almost perfect as a primary key.

SHA-256 (so far!) guarantees uniqueness in 32 bytes.

>                                                    Am I going to
> retrieve an image row by its image data? I would certainly like!
> For instance, I would like to get the pictures whose main color
> is green (requirement from a real project), and a select * from
> images where main_color(image) = 'green' would be nice.

That would speedily be handled by preprocessing metadata records as
the image is inserted.

- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA  USA

Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
are mud people.
However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFJql5S9HxQb37XmcRAgYjAKCeTur3N/AUwQLI79GYbde8nCMYwACfejg+
Xe3qGl7GHlhC4jssvGkAJ6w=
=dW03
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On 10/5/06, Jean-Christophe Roux <jcxxr@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Why would I set a bytea column (containing picures) as a primary key?
> Because I want to be sure that the same image is inserted only once (that
> requirement comes from a real project) and using a primary key for that
> purpose makes sense to me.
> Am I going to retrieve an image row by its image data? I would certainly
> like! For instance, I would like to get the pictures whose main color is
> green (requirement from a real project), and a
> select * from images where main_color(image) = 'green' would be nice.
> JCR

standard postgresql indexes use a btree which would be completely
impractical to index bitmaps.  what you would want is a hand rigged
unqiue constraint which is combination of insert trigger and hash
algorithm plus some code to resolve collisions.  this is what i would
do if bitmaps were stored in/out of the database.

merlin

Hate to suggest corporate software, but there is an Informix/Illustra blade that could do something like what you're
after(I remember a demo of sunset/sunrise photos being selected on the basis of color values) ... 

But I think they used smart blobs and didn't use them as key values.

G

-----Original Message-----
From:    pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org on behalf of Jean-Christophe Roux
Sent:    Thu 10/5/2006 4:54 PM
To:    Alexander Staubo
Cc:    pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject:    Re: [GENERAL] Storing images in PostgreSQL databases (again)

Why would I set a bytea column (containing picures) as a primary key? Because I want to be sure that the same image is
insertedonly once (that requirement comes from a real project) and using a primary key for that purpose makes sense to
me. 
Am I going to retrieve an image row by its image data? I would certainly like! For instance, I would like to get the
pictureswhose main color is green (requirement from a real project), and a  
select * from images where main_color(image) = 'green' would be nice.
JCR


----- Original Message ----
From: Alexander Staubo <alex@purefiction.net>
To: Jean-Christophe Roux <jcxxr@yahoo.com>
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Sent: Thursday, October 5, 2006 7:35:04 PM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Storing images in PostgreSQL databases (again)

On Oct 6, 2006, at 01:29 , Jean-Christophe Roux wrote:

> By the way, is it practical to set a bytea column (containing
> pictures) as primary key? That would severely slow down many
> operations I guess.

Why would you? It's possible, but completely impractical, since image
data typically exceeds the index page size. Moreover, are you really
going to retrieve an image row by its image data?

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









-------------------------------------------------------
Click link below if it is SPAM gsw@globexplorer.com

"https://mailscanner.globexplorer.com/dspam/dspam.cgi?signatureID=4526a19c122019835456387&user=gsw@globexplorer.com&retrain=spam&template=history&history_page=1"
!DSPAM:4526a19c122019835456387!
-------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 05:08:27PM -0600, Leonel Nunez wrote:
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Storing images in PostgreSQL databases (again)
> User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.8
>
> > Leonel Nunez wrote:
> >>> 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
> >
> > I don't follow that.  Suppose your database minus images is 3 GB, and
> > your images are another 50 gigabytes.  Which is easier to replicate, 3
> > or 53?  Put the images on a file server, separate from the DBs - no need
> > to replicate them.
>
> yes 3GB are  *faster*  han 53 gb  but is the same as easy as 3 or 100
And, the above only applies to *initial* costs of replication.

Karsten
--
GPG key ID E4071346 @ wwwkeys.pgp.net
E167 67FD A291 2BEA 73BD  4537 78B9 A9F9 E407 1346

Am 2006-10-05 21:22:04, schrieb Gregory S. Williamson:

> a sufficiently large hash (MD5 for instance). Of course, there's

I do this already but have problems since I have
stored arround 130 million files on a server...

> time to create the hash which might be an issue in a high volume
> system. Extending a hash with some other data (date ?) can

MD5 hashes are 32 Bytes long, maybe they change
it to 64 Bytes?

I have already over 2000 collisions and checked
it, that the files are NOT the same.

> considerably decrease the chance of collisions. It's still a
> longish key, but workable I suspect (untested, we used an
> artificial key, a serial).

Greetings
    Michelle Konzack
    Systemadministrator
    Tamay Dogan Network
    Debian GNU/Linux Consultant


--
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org/
##################### Debian GNU/Linux Consultant #####################
Michelle Konzack   Apt. 917                  ICQ #328449886
                   50, rue de Soultz         MSM LinuxMichi
0033/6/61925193    67100 Strasbourg/France   IRC #Debian (irc.icq.com)

In response to Michelle Konzack <linux4michelle@freenet.de>:

> Am 2006-10-05 21:22:04, schrieb Gregory S. Williamson:
>
> > a sufficiently large hash (MD5 for instance). Of course, there's
>
> I do this already but have problems since I have
> stored arround 130 million files on a server...
>
> > time to create the hash which might be an issue in a high volume
> > system. Extending a hash with some other data (date ?) can
>
> MD5 hashes are 32 Bytes long, maybe they change
> it to 64 Bytes?
>
> I have already over 2000 collisions and checked
> it, that the files are NOT the same.

Try sha1 or sha256.

--
Bill Moran
Collaborative Fusion Inc.

Michelle Konzack <linux4michelle@freenet.de> wrote:

> I do this already but have problems since I have
> stored arround 130 million files on a server...
>
 > ...
 >
> MD5 hashes are 32 Bytes long, maybe they change
> it to 64 Bytes?
>
> I have already over 2000 collisions and checked
> it, that the files are NOT the same.

You mean you have 2000 collisions out of the checksums of 130 million
different files? That can't be right.

An MD5 hash is 128 bits, and using the values found in
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_attack>, you don't reach a 50%
chance of a single collision until you've checksummed 2.2 x 10^19
different inputs. That's, ummm, 22,000,000,000,000,000,000, I think,
which is much larger than 130,000,000.

In other words, you should not expect even a single collision until you
have 169,230,769,231 times as many files as you currently have, which
should not be a issue before the end of the useful life of the solar system.

If you have 2000 collisions after 130 million different files (or even
if you have two collisions), something is almost certainly wrong with
your code, unfortunately.

--
Robert L Mathews

  "The trouble with doing something right the first time is
   that nobody appreciates how difficult it was."

On Oct 13, 2006, at 01:36 , Robert L Mathews wrote:

> Michelle Konzack <linux4michelle@freenet.de> wrote:
>
>> I do this already but have problems since I have
>> stored arround 130 million files on a server...
> > ...
> >
>> MD5 hashes are 32 Bytes long, maybe they change
>> it to 64 Bytes?
>> I have already over 2000 collisions and checked
>> it, that the files are NOT the same.
>
> You mean you have 2000 collisions out of the checksums of 130
> million different files? That can't be right.
[...]
> If you have 2000 collisions after 130 million different files (or
> even if you have two collisions), something is almost certainly
> wrong with your code, unfortunately.

Or Michelle is storing a bunch of duplicate images.

Alexander.

The machine did boot and PostgreSQL started backup, etc.

Thanks.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
To: "Brian J. Erickson" <ericksbr@infocon-inc.com>
Cc: "PostgreSQL Mailing lists" <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Database Transfer between machines(again)


> Brian J. Erickson wrote:
> >>> You can boot from any rescue CD, mount the partition, copy the
database
> >>> directory away and then copy it back once you have reinstalled. This
is
> >>> safe because it is on the same machine. It is not safe to copy the
> >>> database to some arbitrary computer and expect it to run.
> > That is basically the plan but I want to make sure that I have all of
the
> > data.
> >
> >> O.k. hold on... are you getting any errors in /var/log/messages?
> > Here is some of the "/var/log/messages" file
>
>
> That's odd. Have you tried removing /etc/mtab manually and rebooting?
> does the problem still occur? As far as PostgreSQL... you need to look
> in to postgresql logs.
>
> Did you compile from source? What version of Linux is this?
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------Begin--------------------------
--
> > ----------------------
> > Oct  6 07:57:27 Info1A kernel: PCI: Using configuration type 1
> > Oct  6 07:57:27 Info1A kernel: PCI: Probing PCI hardware
> > Oct  6 07:57:27 Info1A mount: mount: can't open /etc/mtab for writing:
> > Input/output error
> > Oct  6 07:57:27 Info1A kernel: PCI: Probing PCI hardware (bus 00)
> > Oct  6 07:57:27 Info1A netfs: Mounting other filesystems:  failed
> > .
> > .
> > .
> > Oct  6 07:57:33 Info1A su(pam_unix)[1229]: session opened for user
postgres
> > by (uid=0)
> > Oct  6 07:57:33 Info1A su(pam_unix)[1229]: session closed for user
postgres
> > Oct  6 07:57:34 Info1A postgresql: Starting postgresql service:  failed
>
> ---------------------------------------------End--------------------------
--
> > ---------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
> > To: "AgentM" <agentm@themactionfaction.com>
> > Cc: "PostgreSQL Mailing lists" <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 5:42 PM
> > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] PostgreSQL Database Transfer between
machines(again)
> >
> >
> >> AgentM wrote:
> >>> On Oct 5, 2006, at 19:10 , Brian J. Erickson wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> And since it's a text file, can't someone fix it with $EDITOR?
> >>>> I tried to edit the file, but I get the Input/Output error.
> >>>>
> >> O.k. hold on... are you getting any errors in /var/log/messages?
> >>
> >> Joshua D. Drake
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>> The recommendatation was to re-install the OS.
> >>>> However, I DO NOT want to lose my database,
> >>>> so I am tring to backup the database.
> >>> You can boot from any rescue CD, mount the partition, copy the
database
> >>> directory away and then copy it back once you have reinstalled. This
is
> >>> safe because it is on the same machine. It is not safe to copy the
> >>> database to some arbitrary computer and expect it to run. Make sure to
> >>> match the database version. Good luck!
> >>>
> >>> -M
> >>>
> >>> ---------------------------(end of
broadcast)---------------------------
> >>> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
> >>>
> >>>               http://archives.postgresql.org
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >>    === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
> >> Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
> >>    Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
> >>              http://www.commandprompt.com/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------(end of
broadcast)---------------------------
> >> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
> >>
> >>                http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
> >>
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
> >
> >                http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
> >
>
>
> --
>
>    === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
> Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
>    Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
>              http://www.commandprompt.com/
>
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
>                http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
>

Hello,

I get the following message in the "pgstartup.log":
postmaster cannot access the server configuration file
"/database/postgresql.conf": Permission denied


I have:
1) read the file doing the following:
    a) su posgres
    b) less postgresql.conf
2) made sure each directory to file is readable by "postgres"
3) made the postgresql.conf and each directory readable by
    everyone.
4) verify the owner and group are postgres.
5) ran initdb as postgres

Any ideas as to what could be the problem?

Brian Erickson

"Brian J. Erickson" <ericksbr@infocon-inc.com> writes:
> I get the following message in the "pgstartup.log":
> postmaster cannot access the server configuration file
> "/database/postgresql.conf": Permission denied

Are you trying to change the standard config file location on a
Red Hat or Fedora system?  If so you're likely to run into
SELinux restrictions on where the postmaster daemon can touch
the filesystem.  You'd need to modify the SELinux policy (or
turn off SELinux but I don't really recommend that) to use a
nonstandard config file together with the standard postgres package.

            regards, tom lane