Hello Sam, I store multiple gigs of image files, some as large as 2-3 megs in Sqlite DB's. For pretty much the same reason, the convenience of having them in one package. For my requirements, extracting the images from the DB, and displaying them isn't a bottleneck. It's fast enough.
Search speed was improved by not storing the meta-data in the same table as the blob data. If I wanted to improve performance even more, I'd keep the meta-data in a different DB file. Essentially a DB for blobs and a DB for meta-data. It seems that seeking over the blobs to get to the meta-data in the combined DB is somewhat slow. C SC> A lot also has to do with the requirements: My software is an event SC> image viewing system, where each event is seen as a single "document" SC> and all the data associated with the "document" is contained within SC> the "event" folder. Currently only the metadata is stored in the SC> database, all the images are stored in folders that are within the SC> "event" folder. I am guessing, as is others, that storing the large SC> images in the SQLite DB would be less efficient then how I am storing SC> it now. One side effect, though is the requirement to backup the SC> "event" folder. It takes a LOT longer to copy 5000 4k~8k files then SC> it would be to copy one 20M ~ 40M database file. Because of this, in SC> time I want to move all the thumbnails into one SQLite file, or maybe SC> have one SQLite file per current folder holding images. SC> Sam SC> _______________________________________________ SC> sqlite-users mailing list SC> sqlite-users@sqlite.org SC> http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
