>conventional SQL seems to be best suited to producing highly
inefficient
>and wasteful searches in those circumstances.
It is good for searching, but not good for returning information to
use in real time. Table and index access, and or staging of data is
quicker for that.
But for complex searches I would prefer to do SQL than code it.
>large objects, such as radiographic images,
>It is dangerous NOT to store everything in one large file - you never
can
>guarantee referential integrity that way!
>It is not *feasible* to store everything in one large file when you
have
>hundreds of gigabytes of clinical images integrated with your data.
Round here, the view of the xray department is that xrays are stored
in the department...I see no reason to think they will change when we
go electronic, so I expect to access images using a URI and
authentication. When the patient record moves from my practice to
another, I don't want to be sending a copy of files held on image
servers, I expect to send a pointer to them.
--
Midgley
GP, UK
