Oracle and SQL server are actually very different in many respects (although I don't have much experience with SQL 2000). I know that Oracle is far more capable of handling large amounts of data than SQL Server (at least SQL Server 7). It is also more scalable and has more functionality. Of course it costs more too :-). But I again, I'm used to the older versions of both Oracle and SQL server so I'll be interested in what your DBA's say. The debate over storing images in a database has been going on for sometime, this isn't the first place I've encountered it.
But if she is not going to be retrieving them often, then storing them in the DB may not be that bad. However, considering the images she is storing, having the headache of another server may be counterbalanced by the possibility of increased security. At 01:10 AM 12/7/01 -0500, you wrote: >store them in the database... > >I was on a project recently where I suggested that the company store their >images on an image server. That was shot down because the Oracle DBAs said >that the database can manage itself. Therefore, the company wouldn't have >to pay someone to manage another server. SQL 2000 is almost a mirror image >of Oracle 8 (at least from my experience) and can handle BLOB and CLOB >types. > >The best way to insert these images is to write a batch process so you can >run and just forget about it. To insert the images you can just do an >"insert into" like you would with any other datatype. Your database will >not get bogged down if it's managed properly. I'm guessing the traffic >projections will require a solution such as multiple servers so you guys can >load balance. > >Again, 800,000 images will be better handled by the database itself rather >than a server admin managing an image server. I'll ask some of our DBAs for >concrete reasons tomorrow and get back to you. > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Kelly Matthews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "SQL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 5:35 PM >Subject: Re: HELP with inserting a file into SQL > > > > Actually its a binary file was using image as an example. I think I am >going to suggest though, that we save the files themselves on a file server >with a unique name vs storing them in the database itself. That would >probably keep SQL from getting bogged down since there are going to be about >800,000 of these files over time and they will be between 1-2 megs in size. >:) We will be using SQL 2000. It's not a file that would ever need to be >retrieved via a website we are just going to be a STOREHOUSE for some FBI >fingerprint files... :) > > > > ---------- Original Message > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
