Andy,
SQL 2012 allows you to have what are called "document stacks" which effectively 
can hold the scanned images even though they aren't part of the database base 
data (.mdf file), it's the equivalent of holding them in a "secret untouchable" 
folder. Originally we went the way of simply holding the path as you stated but 
it is fraught with errors and dangers of pointers being misplaced, documents 
deleted etc etc so we now hold the data actually in the database in Binary 
Image format. 

In addition 2012 can now actually create indexes from the scans with its own 
inbuilt OCR technology which is cool, but as of yet unexplored by me!

Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: ProFox [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of AndyHC
Sent: 23 April 2013 12:27
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [NF] Neat scanner system info and questions

No need to hold the scanned images in a database - just a [path and] filename.
Or there's always PostgreSQL.


On 23/04/2013 15:49, Dave Crozier wrote:
> Joe,
> If you are going to hold the actual scanned images as well as the OCR'd 
> result then compact edition will soon run out of space. I have developed a 
> full system her that does exactly what you describe and we are up about 30Gb 
> of scans already after 18 months. SQL compact has a limit of 4Gb as does 
> sqlexpress 2008 with the original SQL MSDE having only 2Gb. which isn't a lot 
> of data in this respect.
>
> Dave
>
<snip>

[excessive quoting removed by server]

_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Reply via email to