On Wed, 2007-02-28 at 17:04 -0500, Mark wrote: > Kevin Waterson wrote: > > > This one time, at band camp, zerof <zerof@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> It is not a good practice to store pictures in DataBases, use links, > >> instead of. > > > > Rubbish, where are your benchmarks? > > It has almost nothing to do with benchmarks. > > Images are typically best supported in the form of files. They are more > easily manipulated by external tools. > > The web browser sees an image as a single HTTP request. Invoking the PHP > script engine, parsing the script, and executing a SQL query to retrieve > the image from the database is less efficient than letting the web server > just send the file. > > Image files do not need to be constrained by the rigid requirements of a > relational database. > > I could go on, but it should be clear enough that putting images in a > database is not a good idea. What about when you need to share those files across a 50 node network? I'd keep it in a database, then when I need it cache a local copy on the filesystem. Then I can just check the timestamp in the database to see if the file has changed. Voila, multi-node high availability images. Seems better than have a local copy of every single image. I guess the answer is... it depends on what you're doing! Cheers, Rob. -- .------------------------------------------------------------. | InterJinn Application Framework - http://www.interjinn.com | :------------------------------------------------------------: | An application and templating framework for PHP. Boasting | | a powerful, scalable system for accessing system services | | such as forms, properties, sessions, and caches. InterJinn | | also provides an extremely flexible architecture for | | creating re-usable components quickly and easily. | `------------------------------------------------------------' -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
