On Tue, July 11, 2006 1:48 am, Kevin Waterson wrote: > This one time, at band camp, Austin Denyer <adenyer@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> It is generally accepted that storing things like that in a database >> is >> a Bad Thing. Much better to store the images as files and store the >> path in the database. > > Storing paths and databases in slower than just storing images in the > db > or simnply storing them on the server. You are making a db request and > a > file system request. Rather than a single request to the db. > What is a file system if not a database? Operating System File System: A highly-optimized well-tested database for large-sized binary data. Or... What is a database if not a file system? :-) You really need to TEST your assumption about the DB being faster. Where do you think the DB gets the humongous chunk of binary data? You think it's magic? No. It's coming FROM THE FILE SYSTEM. Ultimately, the hard drive is still getting pounded just as hard, by most DBs for most images, if you cram the image into the DB, because the chunk of data is: A) too large to be in RAM, and B) stored as a 'BLOB', which in most DBs, means it's stuck into a separate file, or at least into a separate offset within a monster file, which means the hard drive still has to do a seek to get to it. So, really, you're not "saving" anything, on MOST hardware setups, *unless* the images are all very very very tiny. If you've benchmarked on YOUR hardware and have a proven savings, fine, post your tests and output. If you have no benchmarks, I suggest you do that before you claim it's "faster" :-) -- Like Music? http://l-i-e.com/artists.htm -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
