Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote:
On Nov 9, 2008, at 14:27, Jim Starkey wrote:
Even if it is inconvenient, it is the way to go. Why send a 50MB PDF
to the client if the client isn't going to actually request it?
What's the real use case for that? If you don't want it, just don't
ask for it - no?
First, the storage engine always has to materialize the blob, even if
the record is part of an exhaustive scan and is rejected. Second, the
program logic may look at non-blob fields to decide whether or not to
fetch the blob. For example, both a PDF and HTML translation may be
stored, but not all records have HTML translations. So the program
selects both and decides on a case by case basis.
At least with InnoDB - IIRC - then you don't even get the page cache
hit from the data then.
And really - in what kind of application is storing that big blobs a
good idea?[1]
All modern applications has jpegs and pdfs. It's part of the
environment. Some applications even use Word for textual data entry
because that's what 99% of the world uses. The minimum pdf is about
50K. The minimum Word document is about 40K. Pdfs produced by crappola
scanners are more like 500K. Jpegs by modern cameras are 1 - 2MB.
These are bad ideas only if the database is wretched at storing blobs.
I have the impression that most of us here have spent much too much of
our time just building Javascript driven Kitten websites; so your
perspective is often intriguing and sometimes puzzling. :-)
- ask
[1] I have a couple applications where we use the DB as a kind of file
system (with a small web server and squid/varnish in front) because it
used less space and was easier to backup etc than with actual files --
but it's a weird use of the database and I'd never mix it with "real"
data.
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~drizzle-discuss
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
