# martin@bugs.unl.edu.ar / 2007-03-03 09:18:08 -0300:
We have a system (I didn't work on it, just maintaining it) that has
about 1100 images in a directory. I think we aren't seen any problems
just because it's on a 64bit system.
You should test that assumption.
--
How many Vietnam vets
steve wrote:
As a newbie, is storing an image in a dB a good thing or a bad thing?
I tend to go with depends. We actually store files in a DB in
development, as those machines are separate from the grid. Since some
are windows, linux, and MacOS, it is far easier to store in a DB than
have
On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 22:53 -0500, markw@mohawksoft.com wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 17:31 -0500, markw@mohawksoft.com wrote:
Your claim is that in ALL cases using a file system to store images
is preferable to using a database. As such, you claim that using a
dB
for storing images is
On Sat, 2007-03-03 at 08:22 -0500, markw@mohawksoft.com wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 22:53 -0500, markw@mohawksoft.com wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 17:31 -0500, markw@mohawksoft.com wrote:
Your claim is that in ALL cases using a file system to store images
is preferable to using a
At 10:01 AM -0500 3/1/07, markw@mohawksoft.com wrote:
tedd said:
Well... it's not just me, but from what I've learned and read over the
years.
Your claim is that in ALL cases using a file system to store images
is preferable to using a database. As such, you claim that using a dB
Also, when you hit the 1024 image limit you have to think about
directory schema to store the images, as the linux filesystem (and also
on other 32 bit systems) will start getting slow, until things like ls
will just give you an error.
We have a system (I didn't work on it, just maintaining it)
On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 19:42 -0500, markw@mohawksoft.com wrote:
On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 21:08 +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2007-03-01 12:46:09 -0500:
At 10:01 AM -0500 3/1/07, markw@mohawksoft.com wrote:
In this discussion I have stated reasons why it is a bad idea.
I highly recommend a dark ale or two
to bring down the core temperature :)
Amen!
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
At 5:24 PM -0600 3/1/07, Richard Lynch wrote:
On Wed, February 28, 2007 6:41 pm, Robert Cummings wrote:
What about when you need to share those files across a 50 node
network?
I'd keep it in a database, then when I need it cache a local copy on
the
filesystem. Then I can just check the
I highly recommend a dark ale or two
to bring down the core temperature :)
A good Zinfendel, sit back and relax.
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 11:01 -0500, markw@mohawksoft.com wrote:
I'm going to mostly skip your drivel... and cut straight to a short
comment and an example proving the invalidity of your general argument
that the filesystem is always a better place to store image content.
There we go... you only
At 10:01 AM -0500 3/1/07, markw@mohawksoft.com wrote:
If you are open to honestly consider, then I shall provide a couple
of examples. But if I do and you do not agree, then your only
recourse will be to *prove* otherwise.
So, what say you?
Absolutely, I'm all about computer science.
Not in my environment. All db servers have RAID 10 over 8 SCSI 15K
disks. Pulling from them is always faster than a webserver pulling
from its SATA drive.
That's not exactly an apples to apples comparison.
That is true, and sort of the point.
However, the whole thing started because
snip...
For the record, I will *never* say one size fits all in the realm of
computer programming...
Consideration 2
If your project is to supply images across several web servers on
different host, then you are caught in a sync problem. Images stored
in a file system must be stored on a
At 10:28 AM -0800 3/2/07, steve wrote:
Putting the files in the DB doesn't always remove extra cleanup/management
stuff. Sometimes the database stores binary objects as files and sometimes
they don't get deleted correctly.
I'm dying to know what database you are using that puts every blob in
a
On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 13:49 -0500, Brad Bonkoski wrote:
Overall this has been a cool and interesting thread. For the most part,
I would say I side with Mark, but again the fatal flaw appears to be the
insistence that one approach is right in 100% of the time...which 99% of
the time is
On Thursday 01 March 2007 22:24, Richard Lynch wrote:
I have reflected upon this thread for awhile now.
I believe that the only new thing I have to add is for newbies.
I believe that for a newbie, it would be easier to use the filesystem
rather than the DB.
THAT on the other hand is BS! not
On Friday 02 March 2007 14:48, tedd wrote:
At 5:24 PM -0600 3/1/07, Richard Lynch wrote:
On Wed, February 28, 2007 6:41 pm, Robert Cummings wrote:
What about when you need to share those files across a 50 node
network?
I'd keep it in a database, then when I need it cache a local copy on
At 1:49 PM -0500 3/2/07, Brad Bonkoski wrote:
Overall this has been a cool and interesting thread. For the most
part, I would say I side with Mark, but again the fatal flaw appears
to be the insistence that one approach is right in 100% of the
time...which 99% of the time is false.
-B
At 7:52 PM +0100 3/2/07, Børge Holen wrote:
On Thursday 01 March 2007 22:24, Richard Lynch wrote:
I believe that for a newbie, it would be easier to use the filesystem
rather than the DB.
THAT on the other hand is BS! not to jerk around with you, but no and HELL no.
Storing in the
On Friday 02 March 2007 21:13, tedd wrote:
At 7:52 PM +0100 3/2/07, Børge Holen wrote:
On Thursday 01 March 2007 22:24, Richard Lynch wrote:
I believe that for a newbie, it would be easier to use the filesystem
rather than the DB.
THAT on the other hand is BS! not to jerk around with
But storing them in the DB invariably ends up with too many issues
involving DB storage size and query buffer size, compounded by data
escaping/security issues.
This on the other hand... I'm a newbie, whatever your saying, BUT and it is a
big one; The data has to be escaped anyway, the binary
At 10:01 AM -0500 3/1/07, markw@mohawksoft.com wrote:
If you are open to honestly consider, then I shall provide a couple
of examples. But if I do and you do not agree, then your only
recourse will be to *prove* otherwise.
So, what say you?
Absolutely, I'm all about computer science.
Not in my environment. All db servers have RAID 10 over 8 SCSI 15K
disks. Pulling from them is always faster than a webserver pulling
from its SATA drive.
That's not exactly an apples to apples comparison.
That is true, and sort of the point.
Not really, anything that you provide for
It is funny, but most people don't get the fact that SQL databases are not
the best way to store data. They are designed to select algebraic
relationships from a data set. They are designed to ensure accuracy of the
relationships and the integrity of the data.
Like blobs in separate files, this
I'm making assumptions about the layout again. The database will
likely already have the table files opened, but will need a seek to
get the data. The webserver will have to do an additional seek (I was
assuming on a far slower drive system, and likely twice for stat and
read).
I'm not sure
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2007-03-02 21:37:48 +0100:
However... 6000 small files (and a sub if obliged) I cannot see one heck of a
good reason NOT to hold storage in a database... Imagine the rotten backup
cyclus.
I cannot imagine it. What was the problem?
--
How many Vietnam vets does it
On Saturday 03 March 2007 00:00, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2007-03-02 21:37:48 +0100:
However... 6000 small files (and a sub if obliged) I cannot see one heck
of a good reason NOT to hold storage in a database... Imagine the rotten
backup cyclus.
I cannot imagine it.
I'm making assumptions about the layout again. The database will
likely already have the table files opened, but will need a seek to
get the data. The webserver will have to do an additional seek (I was
assuming on a far slower drive system, and likely twice for stat and
read).
I'm not
It is funny, but most people don't get the fact that SQL databases are
not
the best way to store data. They are designed to select algebraic
relationships from a data set. They are designed to ensure accuracy of
the
relationships and the integrity of the data.
Like blobs in separate files,
On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 17:31 -0500, markw@mohawksoft.com wrote:
Your claim is that in ALL cases using a file system to store images
is preferable to using a database. As such, you claim that using a dB
for storing images is bad practice.
That is fairly close to my professional opinion,
On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 17:31 -0500, markw@mohawksoft.com wrote:
Your claim is that in ALL cases using a file system to store images
is preferable to using a database. As such, you claim that using a dB
for storing images is bad practice.
That is fairly close to my professional opinion,
On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 22:53 -0500, markw@mohawksoft.com wrote:
On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 17:31 -0500, markw@mohawksoft.com wrote:
Your claim is that in ALL cases using a file system to store images
is preferable to using a database. As such, you claim that using a dB
for storing images is
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 22:08 -0500, markw@mohawksoft.com wrote:
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 17:04 -0500, Mark wrote:
Kevin Waterson wrote:
This one time, at band camp, zerof [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is not a good practice to store pictures in DataBases, use
links,
instead of.
The web browser sees an image as a single HTTP request. Invoking
the PHP
script engine, parsing the script, and executing a SQL query to
retrieve
the image from the database is less efficient than letting the web
server
just send the file.
In a simple setup, that is probably
At 5:04 PM -0500 2/28/07, Mark wrote:
Images are typically best supported in the form of files. They are more
easily manipulated by external tools.
-snip-
I could go on, but it should be clear enough that putting images in a
database is not a good idea.
It's clear enough to me that it's not a
At 5:04 PM -0500 2/28/07, Mark wrote:
Images are typically best supported in the form of files. They are more
easily manipulated by external tools.
-snip-
I could go on, but it should be clear enough that putting images in a
database is not a good idea.
It's clear enough to me that it's not a
Rubbish, where are your benchmarks?
^^ whoever wrote that needs to check the manual before you make bold
statements and my friend it is not 'Rubbish'
On 2/28/07, Richard Lynch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, February 27, 2007 8:03 pm, Kevin Waterson wrote:
This one time, at band camp,
Information on image storage in DB's
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum88/9091.htm
Quoting markw@mohawksoft.com:
The web browser sees an image as a single HTTP request. Invoking
the PHP
script engine, parsing the script, and executing a SQL query to
retrieve
the image from the
At 10:01 AM -0500 3/1/07, markw@mohawksoft.com wrote:
In this discussion I have stated reasons why it is a bad idea. No one has
come up with a counter point which can only be served by a database and
thus proves me wrong. I think that says something.
Contradiction is not a sign of falsity,
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2007-03-01 12:46:09 -0500:
At 10:01 AM -0500 3/1/07, markw@mohawksoft.com wrote:
In this discussion I have stated reasons why it is a bad idea. No one has
come up with a counter point which can only be served by a database and
thus proves me wrong. I think that says
On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 21:08 +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2007-03-01 12:46:09 -0500:
At 10:01 AM -0500 3/1/07, markw@mohawksoft.com wrote:
In this discussion I have stated reasons why it is a bad idea. No one has
come up with a counter point which can only be served by
I have reflected upon this thread for awhile now.
I believe that the only new thing I have to add is for newbies.
I believe that for a newbie, it would be easier to use the filesystem
rather than the DB.
True, you then have to do some extra cleanup/management work for
deleted records, so that
On Wed, February 28, 2007 4:04 pm, Mark wrote:
Kevin Waterson wrote:
This one time, at band camp, zerof [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is not a good practice to store pictures in DataBases, use
links,
instead of.
Rubbish, where are your benchmarks?
It has almost nothing to do with
On Wed, February 28, 2007 6:41 pm, Robert Cummings wrote:
What about when you need to share those files across a 50 node
network?
I'd keep it in a database, then when I need it cache a local copy on
the
filesystem. Then I can just check the timestamp in the database to see
if the file has
On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 21:08 +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote:
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2007-03-01 12:46:09 -0500:
At 10:01 AM -0500 3/1/07, markw@mohawksoft.com wrote:
In this discussion I have stated reasons why it is a bad idea. No one
has
come up with a counter point which can only be served
To follow up with Ted, nobody said using the filesystem is bad,
No, it is the most efficient way.
Not in my environment. All db servers have RAID 10 over 8 SCSI 15K
disks. Pulling from them is always faster than a webserver pulling
from its SATA drive.
Also, there is issue of going to the
To follow up with Ted, nobody said using the filesystem is bad,
No, it is the most efficient way.
Not in my environment. All db servers have RAID 10 over 8 SCSI 15K
disks. Pulling from them is always faster than a webserver pulling
from its SATA drive.
That's not exactly an apples to
On Tue, February 27, 2007 8:03 pm, Kevin Waterson wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Richard Lynch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*ALL* of the arguments on this topic, and benchmarks, are in the PHP
General archives.
I am not concerned with past benchmarks done by others, I am asking
what
Kevin Waterson wrote:
This one time, at band camp, zerof [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is not a good practice to store pictures in DataBases, use links,
instead of.
Rubbish, where are your benchmarks?
It has almost nothing to do with benchmarks.
Images are typically best supported in the
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 17:04 -0500, Mark wrote:
Kevin Waterson wrote:
This one time, at band camp, zerof [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is not a good practice to store pictures in DataBases, use links,
instead of.
Rubbish, where are your benchmarks?
It has almost nothing to do with
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 17:04 -0500, Mark wrote:
Kevin Waterson wrote:
This one time, at band camp, zerof [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is not a good practice to store pictures in DataBases, use links,
instead of.
Rubbish, where are your benchmarks?
It has almost nothing to do with
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 22:08 -0500, markw@mohawksoft.com wrote:
On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 17:04 -0500, Mark wrote:
Kevin Waterson wrote:
This one time, at band camp, zerof [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is not a good practice to store pictures in DataBases, use links,
instead of.
The web browser sees an image as a single HTTP request. Invoking the PHP
script engine, parsing the script, and executing a SQL query to retrieve
the image from the database is less efficient than letting the web
server
just send the file.
In a simple setup, that is probably true.
On Sun, February 25, 2007 8:27 pm, Kevin Waterson wrote:
This one time, at band camp, zerof [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is not a good practice to store pictures in DataBases, use links,
instead of.
Rubbish, where are your benchmarks?
In the archives.
Unless your images are teeny-tiny and
This one time, at band camp, Richard Lynch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
*ALL* of the arguments on this topic, and benchmarks, are in the PHP
General archives.
I am not concerned with past benchmarks done by others, I am asking what
current benchmarks this user has made to make his claim.
Kevin
--
Alain Roger escreveu:
Hi,
i stored all my pictures in my PostgreSQL DB as bytea type.
Now i would like to know how can i display them in my PHP pages ?
where can i find some example ?
thanks a lot,
--
It is not a good practice to store pictures in DataBases, use links,
On 2/25/07, zerof [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Alain Roger escreveu:
Hi,
i stored all my pictures in my PostgreSQL DB as bytea type.
Now i would like to know how can i display them in my PHP pages ?
where can i find some example ?
thanks a lot,
--
It is not a good practice
At 3:53 PM -0300 2/25/07, zerof wrote:
Alain Roger escreveu:
Hi,
i stored all my pictures in my PostgreSQL DB as bytea type.
Now i would like to know how can i display them in my PHP pages ?
where can i find some example ?
thanks a lot,
--
It is not a good practice to store
This one time, at band camp, zerof [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is not a good practice to store pictures in DataBases, use links,
instead of.
Rubbish, where are your benchmarks?
kevin
--
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb
Richard Davey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi all,
I am trying to work out how to display all of the keys in a
multi-dimensional array (not their values). For example:
$array = array();
$array['a'] = 1;
$array['a']['b'] = 2;
$array['a']['b']['c'] = 3;
Hello Torsten,
Sunday, May 23, 2004, 6:44:08 PM, you wrote:
$array = array();
$array['a'] = 1;
$array['a']['b'] = 2;
$array['a']['b']['c'] = 3;
$array['a']['b']['c']['d'] = 4;
TR Could you describe a bit more in detail what you mean with based on search
TR result for 4?
I know that 4 is a
Richard Davey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello Torsten,
Sunday, May 23, 2004, 6:44:08 PM, you wrote:
$array = array();
$array['a'] = 1;
$array['a']['b'] = 2;
$array['a']['b']['c'] = 3;
$array['a']['b']['c']['d'] = 4;
TR Could you describe a bit more
Rename the font... I think that's the only solution...
--
// DvDmanDT
MSN: dvdmandt¤hotmail.com
Mail: dvdmandt¤telia.com
Matt Hedges [EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev i meddelandet
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Howdy,
I'm trying to specify font face=Monotype Corsiva in my php document...
but
can't b/c it's
you can use single quotes ' ' (I didn't think it would work, but it does)
around the font.
matt
Matt Hedges [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Howdy,
I'm trying to specify font face=Monotype Corsiva in my php document...
but
can't b/c it's two words... if it was html
I just realized my misstake.. In GD you can't, in HTML it's possible.. Read
the other ppls replies..
--
// DvDmanDT
MSN: dvdmandt¤hotmail.com
Mail: dvdmandt¤telia.com
Dvdmandt [EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev i meddelandet
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rename the font... I think that's the only solution...
Here is small example on how to do it with PHP MySQL and TemplateTamer:
http://www.templatetamer.org/index.php?SimpleMySqlRowList
rush
--
http://www.templatetamer.com/
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
look here:
http://www.php.net/manual/en/ref.filesystem.php
and especially here:
http://www.php.net/manual/en/function.filemtime.php
Michael
Rui Huang [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Hi, friends,
I want to display the last updated time of a file using php,
Dirty trick:
?php
$line_I_want = '47';
// get a web page into an array and print it out
$fcontents = file ('http://www.php.net');
while (list ($line_num, $line) = each ($fcontents)) {
// echo bLine $line_num:/b . htmlspecialchars ($line) . br\n;
if ($line_I_want == $line_num) {
69 matches
Mail list logo
