steve wrote:
As a newbie, is storing an image in a dB a "good" thing or a "bad" thing?
I tend to go with "depends". We actually store files in a DB in
development, as those machines are separate from the grid. Since some
are windows, linux, and MacOS, it is far easier to store in a DB than
have different code for each development machine depending on their
filesystem. Otherwise, in production, neither way really works, so
there is the hybrid way I alluded to before.
Also, when you hit the 1024 image limit you have to think about
directory schema to store the images, as the linux filesystem (and also
on other 32 bit systems) will start getting slow, until things like ls
will just give you an error.
We have a system (I didn't work on it, just maintaining it) that has
about 1100 images in a directory. I think we aren't seen any problems
just because it's on a 64bit system.
--
21:50:04 up 2 days, 9:07, 0 users, load average: 0.92, 0.37, 0.18
---------------------------------------------------------
Lic. Martín Marqués | SELECT 'mmarques' ||
Centro de Telemática | '@' || 'unl.edu.ar';
Universidad Nacional | DBA, Programador,
del Litoral | Administrador
---------------------------------------------------------
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
