> > I agree with your overall argument, but you /could/ have > one record for > > each image, with as much data as you want (even more than the file > > system lets you store). > > Huh? So if you put data in the database it doesn't use any > memory?? So are you > saying that storing images in the DB you are somehow not > constrained my the max > memory of the file system? or am I just reading you completely wrong?
You are reading me wrong. I am talking about specific data. For example, if you wanted to store a bunch of user specific data for each image (username, preferences, etc.), you couldn't do that in a file system. Of course, in a well designed relational database, you would have all that in a separate table anyway, so the point is moot. -------------- [INFO] -- Access Manager: This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the information contained herein (including any reliance thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you. A2 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:224842 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
