On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 8:05 AM, tedd <tedd.sperl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> At 10:17 AM +0000 11/15/09, Ashley Sheridan wrote:
>> Like someone mentioned on the link you posted; storing the images in the
>> database does offer a layer of security, as database access is far
>> easier to control than file access.
> It also offers ease of moving, You don't have to move both database and file
> system to a different server, just the database. Additionally, the file
> paths are always correct -- just reference the database. So, there are
> upsides to storing images in a database.
> I haven't read a single MySQL/PHP book (dozens) that claims storing images
> in a database is a bad idea.
> http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Well, I can tell you that mysql really starts to have issues when the
image table gets up to around 12Gb in size. And if you look at larger
DBs like oracle the like, internally they store a pointer in the table
and the image elsewhere.
Cat, the other other white meat
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php