On 5/8/18, Mike Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm developing a project that deals with image files and am considering > storing all the images in the SQLite database itself, rather than (or in > addition to) the file system. Since the prospective users will probably be > dealing with hundreds of gigabytes in their use of the project, I am > wondering if this is an effective or efficient use of SQLite -- or safe, > because of the risk of data corruption. > > I know the documentation says that SQLite can handle up to 140 TB (do we > know of anyone who is doing this?), so hundreds of gigs is clearly doable.
We know of clients using terabyte and larger database files, without issues. Reports are that performance is very good. The largest disk drive I personally have on hand is 500GB. Things to consider: Is you filesystem able to handle very large files like this? Will it cause problems for automatic backup software? The report at https://www.sqlite.org/fasterthanfs.html came about because of measurements we did (for a client) to determine whether it was faster to store thumbnail images directly to disk or in an SQLite database. Short answer: Faster with SQLite. However, as the size of the image increases, the filesystem gets faster than SQLite. (Conversely, for smaller blobs, SQLite is much faster and more efficient than the filesystem.) So performance will depend to some extent on the size of your images. -- D. Richard Hipp [email protected] _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list [email protected] http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
