I personally think, storing images in DB (any kind of RDBMS that
supports it only because other DBs do) is:
*Good* because makes it portable and easily administered,
*Bad* because obviously, more flexible things get - less performance you
In my opinion, unless you have no *real* need to do so, you can still
leave the images in your files system, just organize them well and use
DB for associating the data and referencing to them.
I know it doesn't really answer your question, but think about it - if
you store all the pictures in one directory, as they get over (1024?)
you'll start suffering from that very issue that I never encountered
personally yet but am aware of - file system limits. Storing them all in
a DB would give you flexibility and more headaches about the
performance. :-)

Maxim Maletsky
Founder, Chief Developer

PHPBeginner.com (Where PHP Begins)
www.phpbeginner.com <http://www.phpbeginner.com/> 
-----Original Message-----
From: Fifield, Mike [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 9:48 PM
Cc: 'Maxim Maletsky'
Subject: Storing images in MySql
After posting my question about performance earlier this morning it was
suggested that I also store the jpg's in the database, (thanks Maxim). I
did a little research and got a lot of conflicting information on
weather this is a good idea or not. For example the following url states
that you suffer a 30% performance hit by doing it this way. 
Is anyone out there running a website that stores images as binary data
in MySql that could comment on this?
Any and all comments are welcome. 

Reply via email to