On Thu, July 13, 2006 6:49 pm, Kevin Waterson wrote: > This one time, at band camp, "Richard Lynch" <ceo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> If you've benchmarked on YOUR hardware and have a proven savings, >> fine, post your tests and output. > > Already done in previous threads. Actually, to be pedantic, you've provided a reference to a dead tree magazine, which I don't happen to have... > nowhere do I say the db is faster than file system. Just that various > methods of db access are > faster than others. I fail to see you point here? Do you have one? Yes. If your primary consideration is performance, then you need to test on YOUR hardware with YOUR setup. > I have simply asked a question of those debunking the idea of binary > storage how much > of a performance hit do they think it takes, I have done _my_ > homework, I wonder if > others have? > You are quick to ask for benchmarks. Where are yours? My primary consideration has never been performance. I'm more concerned about the disaster recovery of a DB from a crashed hard drive, which has been cluttered up with binary data, making data recovery. Other considerations are that your DB client/server buffer size has to be large enough to handle the images. Then your field storage size has to be large enough. Given the number of posts here in PHP-General alone, of people getting tripped up by these things, I have concluded that cramming images into the DB is far more trouble than it is worth. It *seems* like a Good Idea until you actually do it for awhile, and then run into all these snags. -- 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
