|
|
Posted by flamer die.spam@hotmail.com on 05/04/07 00:26
On May 2, 12:18 am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> blessblessbl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Hey guys,
> > I am creating a code out of bits and pieces I found in somebody else's
> > code, so I am not entirely sure how it behaves.
>
> > <IMG SRC="picture.php?ID=1029&THUMB=yes">
>
> > picture.php:
> > <?
> > Header( "Content-type: image/jpg");
> > $linkID = mysql_connect("host", "user", "password");
> > mysql_select_db("database", $linkID);
> > if(isset($_GET['ID'])){$ID=$_GET['ID'];}else{$ID=0;}
> > $result=mysql_query("SELECT * FROM picture_base WHERE ID=$ID") or
> > die("Can't perform Query");
> > $row=mysql_fetch_object($result);
> > if(isset( $_GET['THUMB']){echo $row->THUMB}else{echo $row->IMG;}
> > ?>
> > The script works and displays pictures properly so I am happy with it.
> > Its small and simple enough, my question is if not every site is
> > saving their pictures in databases there must be a reason why, yes?
> > And if I load picture.php?ID=1029&THUMB=yes as opposed to picture.php?
> > ID=1029, will the script still load through the full sized image (in
> > the IMG collum) and will that effect my traffic?
>
> > thank you
>
> I've been storing everything from scanned documents to pictures in
> databases for over 20 years. It works fine. And the larger the number
> of images, the better it outperforms a file system.
>
> For instance - how many file systems do you know can manage 100K files
> in a single directory? A RDB can easily handle 10M pictures. There's
> no "stress" on the database. But it can be a lot of "stress" on a file
> system.
>
You raised an interesting point here I am working on a project
currently with around 10million photos, some folders have 20k+ photos
in each, ranging from a few hundred kbs to 6mb each.. would you
recommend using a database over files? Would MySQL be suitable?
Flamer.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|