Hi,
I’d like to allow users to upload images and store those images in a
Postgres database. I’ve looked through the example in “aguile
development with rails” which suggests using the MySQL blob field.
When I wrote a similar app in Java, we Base64 encoded the file and then
stored it as a text field. Is this easy to do in RoR too? Any advice you
can give me would be greatly appreciated 
Am Freitag, den 24.03.2006, 11:04 +0100 schrieb Pete:
Hi,
I’d like to allow users to upload images and store those images in a
Postgres database. I’ve looked through the example in “aguile
development with rails” which suggests using the MySQL blob field.When I wrote a similar app in Java, we Base64 encoded the file and then
stored it as a text field. Is this easy to do in RoR too? Any advice you
can give me would be greatly appreciated
Why not store a file in the filesystem. That’s easy. If you want, store
it in the database as an base64 encoded text. That would be only a few
lines of code. I think the procedure is the same as in java, only the
language differs. Personally i never caught the sense of storing a file
in a database.
–
Norman T.
file_column plugin is awesome for storing files on the file system. In
my
opinion, that’s the best route to go if you’re going to be serving these
images via a web server. That way, the web server can deal with them
instead
of having to invoke your Rails application just to pull a file out of
the
database.
The only reason I can see a need to store the images in the database is,
like sessions, you need to scale across many servers. If that’s the
case, I
believe there are some wonderful entries on storing binary files into
the
database on the wiki.
Another reason for storing in the database is that you get a backup of
your whole system just by backing up the database. No need to include a
list of other directories.
I have a similar need, how can we store a file on the
file system with rails?
Saiho
— Brian H. [email protected] wrote:
The only reason I can see a need to store the images
lines of code. I think the procedure is the same
Rails mailing list
[email protected]http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
Rails mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
The mind is its own place, and in itself.
Can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven.
http://www.geocities.com/sayoyo/
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
The first hit when you search for upload in the RubyonRails Wiki is
this:
http://wiki.rubyonrails.com/rails/pages/HowtoUploadFiles
I have been using the info from this article for several apps.
–Nis.
file_column plugin is awesome for storing files on the file system. In my
opinion, that’s the best route to go if you’re going to be serving these
images via a web server. That way, the web server can deal with them instead
of having to invoke your Rails application just to pull a file out of the
database.The only reason I can see a need to store the images in the database is,
like sessions, you need to scale across many servers. If that’s the case, I
believe there are some wonderful entries on storing binary files into the
database on the wiki.
Share the filesystem via nfs or some other means. Storing images in
your db doesn’t scale. Make a reference in your db to your file
instead.
regards
Claus
I think storing images on the filesystem is definitely the way to go.
And if you need to scale at a later date use something like MogileFS
(http://www.danga.com/mogilefs/) to handle replication across machines.
Steve
Am Freitag, den 24.03.2006, 17:44 +0100 schrieb Claus G.:
Share the filesystem via nfs or some other means. Storing images in
your db doesn’t scale. Make a reference in your db to your file
instead.
+1. Would you store 100,000 1MB files in a DB? A filesystem is made for
handling files. It’s fast and reliable. DB’s are made for organizing and
finding data, not for storing large binaries.
–
Norman T.
Oh trust me, I totally agree. I’ve written quite a few apps that do this
kind of thing and have never stored files in my database. I don’t
think
“it’s easier to backup” is really that big of an issue… that sounds
like
lazy dba talk to me 
(I’m an Oracle dba, btw)
Like I said… the “only reason” I can think of is the scaling issue…
and
even that’s not a good one.
Share the filesystem via nfs or some other means. Storing images in
your db doesn’t scale. Make a reference in your db to your file
instead.+1. Would you store 100,000 1MB files in a DB?
No I wouldn’t do that.
A filesystem is made for
handling files. It’s fast and reliable. DB’s are made for organizing and
finding data, not for storing large binaries.
When I wrote “share the filesystem” I meant (maby not so obvious
that one keeps the images in files, which is then shared by nfs or
some other means. Only keep a pointer in the db which then
references the file (located on a filesystem).
Storing images in the db does not scale, so if the site does have
ambitions several hundreds GB’s reaching into the TB’s in the db, is
not the way to do it.
regards
Claus
Am Freitag, den 24.03.2006, 18:07 +0100 schrieb Claus G.:
finding data, not for storing large binaries.
When I wrote “share the filesystem” I meant (maby not so obvious
that one keeps the images in files, which is then shared by nfs or
some other means. Only keep a pointer in the db which then
references the file (located on a filesystem).Storing images in the db does not scale, so if the site does have
ambitions several hundreds GB’s reaching into the TB’s in the db, is
not the way to do it.
Sorry, you misunderstood me! I totally agree with you! The question was
directed to Chris S… NFS is also my prefered way.
–
Norman T.
On Mar 24, 2006, at 8:51 AM, Norman T. wrote:
instead.
+1. Would you store 100,000 1MB files in a DB? A filesystem is made
for
handling files. It’s fast and reliable. DB’s are made for
organizing and
finding data, not for storing large binaries.
What precludes large binaries from being data?
And, as often as it’s said, people should wonder why every database
has a
BLOB type column!
I guess someone should alert the database coders and vendors that they
should discontinue BLOB support in the future, since that’s not what
databases should be used for.
I don’t entirely disagree with the position, but I don’t entirely agree
with it either.
–
– Tom M.
Norman T. wrote:
When I wrote “share the filesystem” I meant (maby not so obvious
What question? Nothing quoted above was from me.
I wrote that one could use a single backup point as a reason to put
images in a database. Someone else wrote it could scale. I have no idea,
and wouldn’t do it either. I just wrote it as a response to someone who
wrote that he couldn’t think of another reason to do it.
Chris S.
On Mar 24, 2006, at 8:45 AM, Steven Mohapi-Banks wrote:
can give me would be greatly appreciated
I think storing images on the filesystem is definitely the way to
go. And if you need to scale at a later date use something like
MogileFS (http://www.danga.com/mogilefs/) to handle replication
across machines.
This is what we did for 43 Things.
Stored images on an NFS-mounted directory until the disk got nearly
full, then switched to MogileFS.
So now there’s a Ruby MogileFS client:
http://blog.segment7.net/articles/2006/03/22/mogilefs-for-ruby
–
Eric H. - [email protected] - http://blog.segment7.net
This implementation is HODEL-HASH-9600 compliant
Am Freitag, den 24.03.2006, 11:47 -0600 schrieb Chris S.:
What question? Nothing quoted above was from me.
I wrote that one could use a single backup point as a reason to put
images in a database. Someone else wrote it could scale. I have no
idea,
and wouldn’t do it either. I just wrote it as a response to someone
who
wrote that he couldn’t think of another reason to do it.
Sorry for the confusion. I missed to quote you.
“Another reason for storing in the database is that you get a backup of
your whole system just by backing up the database. No need to include a
list of other directories.”
I thought you would suggest this way as an answer to the initial
question of Pete, what was:
"I’d like to allow users to upload images and store those images in a
Postgres database. I’ve looked through the example in “aguile
development with rails” which suggests using the MySQL blob field.
When I wrote a similar app in Java, we Base64 encoded the file and then
stored it as a text field. Is this easy to do in RoR too? Any advice
you
can give me would be greatly appreciated :)"
Norman T.
You may also want to check out this very interesting discussion we had
at Sheeri’s blog about the same topic, i.e. storing images (36
million) in a database.
Includes comments from James Day of Wikipedia.
I second Brian in that you shouldn’t do this just because “it’s easier
to backup”.
Frank
Brian H. [email protected] wrote:Oh trust me, I totally agree.
I’ve written quite a few apps that do this kind of thing and have
never stored files in my database. I don’t think “it’s easier to
backup” is really that big of an issue… that sounds like lazy dba
talk to me
(I’m an Oracle dba, btw)
Like I said… the “only reason” I can think of is the scaling issue…
and even that’s not a good one.
On 3/24/06, Norman T. [email protected] wrote:
Want to read my Pro Rails book or Pro Server Management book? Become a
beta reader now. Write me to learn more.
Rails Blog: http://railsruby.blogspot.com
MySQL Blog: http://mysqldatabaseadministration.blogspot.com
Linux / Security Blog: http://frankmash.blogspot.com
Programming One Liners: http://programming-oneliners.blogspot.com
You may also want to check out this very interesting discussion we had at
Sheeri’s blog about the same topic, i.e. storing images (36 million) in a
database.
Quoting from the blog:
“My company’s site has over 2 million images to store/retrieve, and
our current setup is at its limit and doesn’t scale well ? 2 NFS
servers. We’d rather avoid adding another NFS server, …”
You don’t add another nfs-server, you implement a solution where you
upgrade your current nfs-server with more disk-storage and add that
storage to some sort of storage-pool.
Storing and retrieving 2 mill. images is also about planning your
layout, either by date or incrementing a counter or by other means
dividing your images into sub-dirs. You may have two nfs-server, but
that’s usually to provide some sort of fail-over.
But this is becoming off-topic and ought to be continued on a db- or
serverperformance-related list instead.
regards
Claus
What I don’t get is how quickly discussions get labeled as off-topic.
Using Rails does involves server / db issues. Why not let discussions
run their course to accumulate the specific practices being used by the
Rails community.
Just my two cents.
Frank
Claus G. [email protected] wrote:
But this is becoming off-topic and ought to be continued on a db- or
serverperformance-related list instead.
regards
Claus
Want to read my Pro Rails book or Pro Server Management book? Become a
beta reader now. Write me to learn more.
Rails Blog: http://railsruby.blogspot.com
MySQL Blog: http://mysqldatabaseadministration.blogspot.com
Linux / Security Blog: http://frankmash.blogspot.com
Programming One Liners: http://programming-oneliners.blogspot.com
I just solved this problem myself.
I used the file_column plugin and let it upload to its default /
RAILS_ROOT/public/upload directory.
I think the folder was named after my model. While in development, i
had subversion ignore this directory so that when i deployed, it
wouldn’t be there. I then created a symlink to a directory under my
“shared” directory outside of my app.
This way when i redeploy, users aren’t going to lose their uploads.
/current -> /releases/200629030912
/releases
/releases/200629030912
/releases/200629030912/public/upload -> /shared/upload
/shared
/shared/upload
I hope that wasn’t too confusing.
This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.
Sponsor our Newsletter | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs