Andreas Volz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > I'll tell you my current situation. I implemented a web cache function > for images and other data in my application. In the past I saved the > data on the hard disk with a special name and had a text file with the > relation "cache file name <-> url". But I didn't like it. Now I like to > evaluate sqlite as solution. > > So my question is about the binary data. Is it better to insert the > images and other media data (e.g. videos with < 10 MB of size) into the > DB or only a "pointer" to a file laying around on my hard disk? I would > estimate a maximum DB size of several hundred MB. > > How good/bad is reading/writing this data into a BLOB compared to write > it as file beside the DB and write only a small name into the DB? Where > is the difference between both ways regarding memory and CPU usage? > > BTW: My current use case writes data slow, but reads data fast. Reading > BLOB's must be as fast as reading on the hard disk. >
In my studies, BLOB I/O is faster than disk I/O for BLOBs of about 50KiB or less on Linux. Disk I/O is faster for larger BLOBs. I have received reports that the transition threshold is about 14KiB on win32. In my experiements, BLOB I/O is about 10% slower than direct disk I/O for multi-megabyte blobs. -- D. Richard Hipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
