Rene:
I think a good deal depends on the size of the image files themselves. There
are a number of apps that store small files (i.e.: icons, small gif's,
etc.), which seems to make sense.
Larger files may be problematic. There was quite a discussion on this issue
here just last week ... do a sea
if the images are not to big I would recommend saving them to blobs. It
saves you a lot of work, since you have to think about lots of stuff. Even a
garbage collector should be programmed since there is not a transaction
possibility between FS and DB.
Andy
"René fournier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mike Fifield wrote:
> 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 followi
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
achieve.
In my opinion, unless you have no *real* need
From the mysql manual (http://www.mysql.com/doc/T/i/Tips.html):
"When using a normal Web server setup, images should be stored as files.
That is, store only a file reference in the database. The main reason for
this is that a normal Web server is much better at caching files than
database conte
5 matches
Mail list logo
