-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Martijn, et al --
...and then Martijn Tonies said...
% > Since I want the ability to mirror, it seems that I'll probably want one
% > really don't want to keep the files in the DB itself). I'm open to ideas
% > of why I wouldn't, though.
% Well, putting the files themselves in the database would solve
% your replication problem :-)
Well, that's true, and I thoguht of that :-)
% All in one, one in all...
But hasn't this gone around the list a dozen times and, while either will
work, isn't the general feelign that the best idea is to keep those big
files (pictures, documents, music, movies, ...) out on the filesystem
rather than inside the database? Sure, small data (comments, for
instance, as you'll have noted) is great in the DB, but stuff as big as
that just clogs up the DB and requires an extra export step to get out
anyway. Um, right?
Besides, this way I can leave the quota restrictions to the OS :-)
% > My real question comes down to table layout. Given the customer data as
% > above (in much more detail, of course), I'm not sure whether I want a
% > you do anything" section) or a single large table structure.
% IMO, a single table structure. Unless you want to give each customers
% its own _database_ (not just tables in the same database).
I don't nkow that I want to do that, though that's an interesting idea
that hadn't occurred to me. So for the moment I'm still looking at a
single table structure. Good enough...
% With regards,
% Martijn Tonies
Thanks & HAND & Still listening...
http://justpickone.org/davidtg/ Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----