Really? In both cases, it's just bits on a disk. In the case where you don't have access to a shared file repository for your client apps, you haven't got the option of just storing paths.
Regards, Chris On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 23:30, Sime wrote: > Chris Nolan wrote: > > Personally, I would have to disagree. I have just completed a > > year-long > > uni project whereby we built some software that stored massive images > > in InnoDB tables. We found that the performance was (at very worst) > > comparable to the alternative method. > > > > Additionally, this method is better on many levels. You can have a > > sealed server and you protect yourself from users who like playing > > with things (like filenames). > > > > On Sat, 2003-12-13 at 08:13, Neil Watson wrote: > >> > >> I believe the data type you are looking for is blob. However, you > >> would > >> be better off using your row to point to a file located on the hard > >> drive instead of actually in the database. I can't recall the > >> technical details but, your performance will be much better that way. > > I'd agree with Neil. I've never believed in that, surely it's just causing > overhead for MySQL. Surely far better to have the files managed by the file > system? That's what it's there for. > -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
