|
|
Posted by Geoff Berrow on 07/24/05 17:59
I noticed that Message-ID:
<42e38edc$0$25427$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> from Michael Phipps
contained the following:
>> Even sillier, why put images in the database in the first place?
>>
>
>Perhaps it isn't suitable in this particular scenario, but if you are likely
>to have thousands of images, isn't there a limit to the number of files you
>can put into a particular directory?
Not that I'm aware of.
>
>I store photos in a database with no ill effects so far. No one has been
>able to convince me one is better than the other - perhaps you can?
I'm not saying you will have any ill effects (though I'm sure there
would be if the number of images got very large). It's just that there
is little or no benefit in storing images themselves. You can't search
on them or sort on them. However, with file names I can do all these
things. With sensible naming you can fetch your pictures in all sorts
of ways. Additionally the same picture can be accessed by any number of
database records without the overhead of storing it n number of times.
--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|