|
|
Posted by Andy Hassall on 08/05/05 01:32
On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 23:54:11 +0300, Alexey Kulentsov <crimaniak@crimaniak.com>
wrote:
>> The other alternative would be to store the images in the database.
>Never store image in database. Database can't index images so you have
>no any reason to store it in SQL server.
Untrue - two clear advantages are:
(1) The image data is under the same transactional control as the rest of the
data. If your server crashes, then you don't have any guarantee that the
filesystem is in sync with the database any more. And you can't ROLLBACK a
filesystem change.
(2) Having the images in the database means you only have to backup one thing,
and similar to (1) you know that your image data is referentially correct
compared with the rest of the data.
There are disadvantages to storing image data in the database, some of which
can be alleviated with caching in the filesystem, but to say there is no reason
to store images in the database is not true.
--
Andy Hassall / <andy@andyh.co.uk> / <http://www.andyh.co.uk>
<http://www.andyhsoftware.co.uk/space> Space: disk usage analysis tool
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|