the blob field can't be indexed but others (id, filename, keywords,
caption etc..) can, there's lots of cases where it makes sense to put
images in a database.
This makes no sense to me.
You would still index the filename, the keywords, the caption, make them all
searchable, but you do *NOT*
There are benefits to this making the performance hit worthwhile in some
instances.
More info:
http://www.zend.com/zend/trick/tricks-sept-2001.php
-Original Message-
Inserting images or whatever binary data in a database does not have much
sense
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 09:35:37 -0700
Lazor, Ed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are benefits to this making the performance hit worthwhile in some
instances.
Sure, the exceptions rules :).
I am not sure about your answer. The article where you pointed me does not go against
what we said, and
Aren't you saying that storing files on the local file system is generally
faster than using database blobs?
There are enough examples in the article and related threads to convince me
that benefits to database blobs are more than exceptions to the rule. In
fact, there are even examples where
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 11:24:31 -0700
Lazor, Ed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Aren't you saying that storing files on the local file system is generally
faster than using database blobs?
In most cases I meet (mysql, pgsql and oracle), the filesystem methods were faster on
Linux and Solaris systems.
i also noticed that the images are not cached at all. The other images
comming from the FS are cached just fine. Do u think thats because of the
blob?
Andy
Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb im Newsbeitrag
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 14:20:30 +0200, Pierre-Alain
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 14:20:30 +0200, Pierre-Alain Joye wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 14:17:53 +0200
andy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi there,
I am wondering if anybody has experiance in saving images to blob
in mysql.
I do save images with 1 K and 4 KB to blob fields while I used to
save them
to file.
7 matches
Mail list logo
