|
|
Posted by Nick DeNardis on 12/22/06 14:29
Very True, I use to run a photo hosting web site and I experimented
with this in the beginning and oh man once there was 100,000+ images in
there the MySQL DB slowed down quite significantly. Almost 3 gigs of
data in a MySQL table is not the way to do it, I have found the file
system does a much better job holding and serving images.
What I ended up doing is just creating a simple mod 30 hash folder
setup to store all the actual photos and then have a table to store all
the attributes of the photos. This improved the performance very
significantly over the pure MySQL setup. Also separating the photos
into 30 different folders helped in case I actually had to do any
folder scans, it would not need to scan though all the photos just
1/30th of them.
I hope this helps.
Nick D.
On Dec 21, 10:57 pm, "seaside" <seaside...@mac.com> wrote:
> eholz1 schrieb:
>
> > Hello Members,
>
> > I am setting up a photo website. I have decided to use PHP and MySQL.
> > I can load jpeg files into the table (medium blob, or even longtext)
> > and get the image(s) to display without a problem.Just a small performance note:
>
> If you use blobs and various other types, MySQL is likely to fall back
> in table-scan mode which might slow down your queries very much. A
> table-scan needs to read the full table data, at least much more, than
> an index.
>
> Even if you use some indexes, MySQL might not use them - the exact
> behaviour depends on your indexes and queries.
>
> Are there good reasons to keep image data in tables and not in file
> systems - other than simpler coding, e.g.?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|