05242007 040 GMT-6 DST Only the name of the image will be in the db, not the image itself.
wade On Thu, 2007-05-24 at 09:14 +0100, Gurudatta Raut wrote: > Hi, > > I seriously doubt if image from stored in DB will be faster, since u will > have to > > 1) search it in Db > > 2) retrieve it from Db in memory > > 3) Save it by creating a new file > > 4) Create code to send this file to user > > 5) U will have to do this for each user every time > > 6) Hence it wont be in users cache > > Is that fast ? > > > > Mike Brandonisio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Wade, > > Thanks for taking time to decipher my posting. Yes I figures that a > DB would be better than a flat file. All of the image will have meta > data to search on in the DB. The result will show a thumbnail and > link to the larger image. I read some where that windows folders on > FAT32 are something like 65,534 and on NTFS are 4,294,967,295 files > on a folder or folders in a folder. I cannot find anything on linux > though. Some say theoretical 10 to the 18 power. > > Sincerely, > Mike
