Posted by Good Man on 11/04/05 18:55

Berimor <berimor@berimor.ber> wrote in news:opszor5tger1c5ad@lancer:

> On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 13:31:45 -0800, Dennis Willson
> <giganews@taz-mania.com> wrote:
>
>> I have found it more efficient to create a database entry that
>> describes the image, create a unique name and actually store the
>> image on a NAS with the path and filename in the database. Any other
>> server that needs access (like a web server or so forth) would then
>> have a mount point that allows the same path as what was written in
>> the database.
>
> sure Dennis, this method is convinient enough and i currently using
> it. I just wanted to try to save the images to DB - wanted to
> estimate the difference. But its still nothing work out.

i'd first think about the pros and cons of both methods. a big pro about
your current method (which is most people's MUCH preferred method) is
that you can access the image on the server directly, without having to
go through MySQL. Also, in case of MySQL database corruption, your
images would still be recoverable.

if you wanted to go the store-image-in-database route, consider that your
MySQL database size will get pretty darned large if you're storing a lot
of images, and this will impact your queries on tables in the database.

I have rarely come across any convincing arguments that would lead me to
suggest storing images in a database is a good idea... if you're trying
to prevent direct-linking to your images, you can always store the image
above the main web folder, and then stream them/include them via php or
another scripting language when you want to display them...

[Back to original message]