Michael... understood. but what with disk space being relatively inexpensive nowadays...if his need to hide the image paths outweighs the issue of disk space, it might be a worthwhile option.
i just didn't (and still don't) know if there's any performance impact as far as converting the data back into an image. can you elaborate on whether or not there is? Thanks, Charlie On 7/21/06, Michael E. Carluen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > i know there have been heated discussions about the overhead (or lack > > thereof) of storing actual images in the database... > > Charlie, from my own experience of storing images as binaries on a mySQL db, > it bumps up the size of the stored file by upto 50%. Meaning, a 100k image > may take upto 150k in db space. Good enough reason for me to just keep the > images in a directory as is. Now you made me curious; I'd google the > archives for heated discussions you were referring to. > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/message.cfm/forumid:4/messageid:247324 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
