Thomas Fjellstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I still wonder about the utility of storing binary data in the db itself.
> Maybe it makes it more easy to distribute that way, but how often does one
> distribute an entire database in a "vendor specific" format?
A common use for SQLite is as an application file format. When
you do File->Open, instead of reading and parsing a bunch of
information in a proprietary format, just call sqlite3_open()
on the file instead. File->Save becomes a no-op. There is no
parser to write. Performance problems can often be fixed simply
by adding another index. All of your data is written to disk
atomically and is relatively safe from corruption even if you
turn off the power during a write. There are a lot of advantages
to this approach.
Lots of people are starting to use SQLite as an application
file format. Remember the SQLite slogan:
SQLite is not a replacement for Oracle, it is a
replacement for fopen().
>
> I'm quite interested in hearing people's reasoning for going the blob route,
> when you have a perfectly good "database" format for "blobs" already (various
> filesystems).
>
Just yesterday, Eric Scouten posted on this list that he had done
a study and found that for BLOB smaller than 20-30K it was faster
to store them in an SQLite database than on disk.
--
D. Richard Hipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
