On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 11:00 +0200, clive wrote:
> itoctopus wrote:
> > I have tried both, and I tell you that I really felt that the filesystem is
> > a more convenient way of doing it.
> >
> I have to agree, filesystems were after all designed to store files. I
> reckon reading a file from disk
On 5/22/07, clive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
itoctopus wrote:
> I have tried both, and I tell you that I really felt that the filesystem is
> a more convenient way of doing it.
>
I have to agree, filesystems were after all designed to store files. I
reckon reading a file from disk is much quicker
itoctopus wrote:
I have tried both, and I tell you that I really felt that the filesystem is
a more convenient way of doing it.
I have to agree, filesystems were after all designed to store files. I
reckon reading a file from disk is much quicker than reading from a
database, maybe only fract
Best of both worlds may be SQLite. ZEND has a nice article on the subject.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am in the process of adding a part to my website which would include
pictures, pdf files, txt files, and excel files. The files sizes
could be anywhere on average of 100k to 2mb. Do you think
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am in the process of adding a part to my website which would include
pictures, pdf files, txt files, and excel files. The files sizes
could be anywhere on average of 100k to 2mb. Do you think I should be
uploading the files to a MySQL database or to my server?
I have
I have tried both, and I tell you that I really felt that the filesystem is
a more convenient way of doing it.
--
itoctopus - http://www.itoctopus.com
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>I am in the process of adding a part to my website which would include
> pictures,
6 matches
Mail list logo
