[snip]
... some research ...
[/snip]
So, am I to assume that this issue about storing images in databases is
dead?
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
At 12:36 PM -0500 7/19/06, Jay Blanchard wrote:
[snip]
... some research ...
[/snip]
So, am I to assume that this issue about storing images in databases is
dead?
Yes, it was dead before it started, as it was the last time this issue was
discussed.
Simply put, there are tradeoffs, but both
[snip]
Kevin, you have more than once pointed out using a RAW format for
operating the data system, what exactly do you mean? The database
becomes the OS? If so, how do you set that up? It is something that I am
not totally familiar with.
[/snip]
I did some research and went back to Kevin's
Richard Lynch wrote:
Given the number of posts here in PHP-General alone, of people getting
tripped up by these things, I have concluded that cramming images into
the DB is far more trouble than it is worth.
It *seems* like a Good Idea until you actually do it for awhile, and
then run into all
This one time, at band camp, Richard Lynch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Assume, for the sake of argument, that your hard drive crashed.
And your backup tape was invalid.
And the weekly backup tape is also invalid.
And, for good measuere, the monthly tape is just so out-of-date, that
[snip]
...a lot of stuff started by my original answer...
[/snip]
While this has been a fine debate I find that the discussion has
deteriorated badly. Can we bring it back on point?
There are a lot of us using MySQL (and PostGreSQL) along with PHP and in
practice we have found that storing
On Fri, July 14, 2006 9:52 pm, Kevin Waterson wrote:
I'm more concerned about the disaster recovery of a DB from a
crashed
hard drive, which has been cluttered up with binary data, making
data
recovery.
One of the greatest benifits of binary DB storage is a single point
of back up
On Thu, July 13, 2006 6:49 pm, Kevin Waterson wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Richard Lynch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you've benchmarked on YOUR hardware and have a proven savings,
fine, post your tests and output.
Already done in previous threads.
Actually, to be pedantic, you've
This one time, at band camp, Richard Lynch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm more concerned about the disaster recovery of a DB from a crashed
hard drive, which has been cluttered up with binary data, making data
recovery.
One of the greatest benifits of binary DB storage is a single point
of
This one time, at band camp, Richard Lynch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's coming FROM THE FILE SYSTEM.
databases can be stored on RAW partitions, thus eliminating FILE SYSTEM
overhead
Kevin
--
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb
This one time, at band camp, Richard Lynch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You really need to TEST your assumption about the DB being faster.
Do you _really_ think I am speaking without testing any of this??
I once wrote an article on this very topic in PHP mag and published the
benchmarks.
Kevin
On Tue, July 11, 2006 11:38 am, Eric Butera wrote:
I don't see a problem with storing images in the DB IF they aren't
going to be continually accessed that way. For example say you have a
script that lets a user upload an image and creates a small, medium,
and large view out of it. Stick the
On Thu, July 13, 2006 1:25 pm, Kevin Waterson wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Richard Lynch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's coming FROM THE FILE SYSTEM.
databases can be stored on RAW partitions, thus eliminating FILE
SYSTEM
overhead
And are you actually doing this, or merely
This one time, at band camp, Richard Lynch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you've benchmarked on YOUR hardware and have a proven savings,
fine, post your tests and output.
Already done in previous threads.
nowhere do I say the db is faster than file system. Just that various methods
of db
[snip]
How much of a performance hit?
[/snip]
Here is an interesting read;
http://mysqldump.azundris.com/archives/36-Serving-Images-From-A-Database
.html
Your system receives a number of file read requests, requesting it to
load a number of blocks from the disk into the mysqld process.
On 7/11/06, Adam Zey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The time taken per request, though (and that's about all we can get with
a concurrency as low as 5) doesn't tell us much. We also don't know
exactly what the PHP code is doing, how it does it, how your database is
organized/indexed/accessed, if you
On Tue, July 11, 2006 1:48 am, Kevin Waterson wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Austin Denyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is generally accepted that storing things like that in a database
is
a Bad Thing. Much better to store the images as files and store the
path in the database.
This one time, at band camp, Jay Blanchard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Do not store images in a database, it is just a bad idea from a
performance perspective (as has been covered many times heretofore).
rubbish, has been proven other wise, you are quoting old wives tales
Please provide
This one time, at band camp, Austin Denyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is generally accepted that storing things like that in a database is
a Bad Thing. Much better to store the images as files and store the
path in the database.
Storing paths and databases in slower than just storing
This one time, at band camp, Larry Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There may be other reasons you'd want to store binary data in an SQL
database,
but it will always be a performance hit over just passing a normal file that
can be streamed right off the disk to the server's NIC.
How
On 7/11/06, Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How much of a performance hit?
Kevin
--
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit:
Eric Butera wrote:
On 7/11/06, Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How much of a performance hit?
Kevin
--
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To
On Monday 10 July 2006 09:31, Peter Lauri wrote:
[snip]
1. Do not store images in a database, it is just a bad idea from a
performance perspective (as has been covered many times heretofore).
[/snip]
Is that really the case? Is this not depending on the application? :) My
application will
Best group member,
I am creating images via GD and want to save them to the database. Right now
I save them to the disk and then save them to the database. Is it possible
to write them directly to the database and skip the middle step where I
temporary write it to the hard disk?
Best
[snip]
I am creating images via GD and want to save them to the database. Right
now
I save them to the disk and then save them to the database. Is it
possible
to write them directly to the database and skip the middle step where I
temporary write it to the hard disk?
[/snip]
1. Do not store
[snip]
1. Do not store images in a database, it is just a bad idea from a
performance perspective (as has been covered many times heretofore).
[/snip]
Is that really the case? Is this not depending on the application? :) My
application will never grow, and I can easily just change the file
Peter Lauri wrote:
[snip]
1. Do not store images in a database, it is just a bad idea from a
performance perspective (as has been covered many times heretofore).
[/snip]
Is that really the case? Is this not depending on the application? :) My
application will never grow, and I can easily
27 matches
Mail list logo
