Having images in the database also makes scaling pretty simple in that we can add replicated slave machines for reading images.
David Blomstrom wrote:
--- Greg Willits <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On May 19, 2004, at 1:19 PM, David Blomstrom wrote:
All "conventional wisdom" I've ever come across for
this type of application is that there's no advantage to keeping
the image in the db itself. Just keep them as files on the server, store
a filename &/or location in the db if necessary, and use your
middleware to display the images. Its faster, easier to maintain, and easier
to backup. IMO, storing images in the db just bloats the file and
complicates all the backup issues.
That's the advice I wanted to hear; one less thing for me to learn. :)
Thanks.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! - Internet access at a great low price. http://promo.yahoo.com/sbc/
-- Senior Programmer, Tufts University Sciences Knowledgebase [EMAIL PROTECTED] 617.636.0959
-- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
