As far as it being slow, well, not terribly as long as your files don't balloon too large, especially considering all the stuff you might be doing with the disk. If you store images that are played with a lot on the disk, it'll likely be slower than MySQL due to MySQL having better caching. (I have actually shown this on some of my projects that work with a lot of images that are worked with quite a bit).
If your site is going to be high volume traffic, implement some sort of caching routine for your images. You'll get the convenience of database and the performance boost of caching, and as always, if the cache fails, just hit the database for the information.
For your needs, give it a try. I doubt you'll have performance problems, and you can always switch back to the filesystem if you do have troubles.
-Galen
If you are going to be passing images
On Dec 10, 2003, at 10:32 AM, Adam i Agnieszka Gasiorowski FNORD wrote:
Derrick Fogle wrote:
I've read that, given the choice, you should never store images in a database because it makes the database dog slow. But I've got some parameters and issues that might make a difference:
We (at hyperreal.info) are storing all the images attached to articles in the database and all the structural images (belonging to design) in files on filesystem (in CVS). There are no problems and backups are much easier...The server runs on LAMP.
-- Seks, seksiÄ, seksolatki... news:pl.soc.seks.moderowana http://hyperreal.info { iWanToDie } WiNoNa ) ( http://szatanowskie-ladacznice.0-700.pl foReVeR( * ) Poznaj jej zwiewne ksztaÅty... http://www.opera.com 007
-- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
-- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php