Posted by Tim Streater on 03/28/07 13:55

In article <4LadncMb3JhkwpfbnZ2dnUVZ_uWlnZ2d@comcast.com>,
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:

> Geoff Berrow wrote:
> > Message-ID: <8OmdncdWe6syIJTbnZ2dnUVZ_qXinZ2d@comcast.com> from Jerry
> > Stuckle contained the following:
> >
> >>> Why? Why would I *want* to put non-relational data in a relational
> >>> database? Why would I *want* to use a database as a filesystem?
> >>>
> >>> Just saying "it works fine" is not enough.
> >>>
> >> Because it IS RELATIONAL. It is related to other data in the database.
> >
> > If there were functions that could extract meta data about the image
> > (filename, size, type etc) then I think you would have a point. As it
> > is, you are simply using the database /as/ a filesystem when it clearly
> > isn't. Now that's not to say that that is a bad idea necessarily, I can
> > see arguments for adopting this approach (portability and ease of
> > maintenance for example) as well as arguments against.
>
> But it is relational. Every post in here has had comments about storing
> the path to the file in the database. So if the path is relational
> data, why isn't the data?

Don't think I was talking about storing the path. Definitely the file
itself, in my example.

-- tim

[Back to original message]