I think the general consensus should always be "use with caution" and "you'll probably know if you really need it". As with most things, there are cases where you absolutely don't want it, and probably some cases where you do need it. I'm sure those links will help the OP :)
On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Raghupathi Kamuni <[email protected]>wrote: > Interesting links > http://research.microsoft.com/apps/pubs/default.aspx?id=64525 > > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/348363/what-is-the-best-practice-for-storing-uploaded-images > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3748/storing-images-in-db-yea-or-nay > > > > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Jamie Fraser <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I quite agree - I just don't like seeing someone say "bad practice" when >> we have no idea of the circumstances and they can't back it up with >> evidence. >> >> I'll give you a scenario where it is BAAAAD : >> >> If you have a web app, and it retrieves images from your DB, then your >> browser will typically create new threads for each image (up to a set >> maximum). Each of these connections will essentially lock a DB connection >> whilst it loads. >> >> On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Cerebrus <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Lol, Processor... that was quite funny! >>> >>> My stand on the matter has always been "not recommended". I don't go >>> so far as to say "bad practice" because there are various scenarios in >>> which it may be a viable option. Normally, I would always prefer to >>> store image files in a folder, instead of the db itself. >>> >>> On Sep 29, 5:46 pm, Processor Devil <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > Storing image in database record is a very bad practice when you have >>> very >>> > limited database space.... Sharing image as external link is a very bad >>> > practice when you have very limited web hosting. >>> > Arguing on the internet is like running in Special Olympics... Even if >>> you >>> > win, you are still retarded :). >>> > >>> >> >> >
