Post reply

Does Storing Images in a SQL DB affect performance in a big way?

  • February 18, 2004 at 1:01 pm

    #107733

    Been pondering the idea of putting 43 - 56K Pdf documents into a SQL DB but everything I've read only goes as far as to explain how the data is stored or manipulated.

  • February 18, 2004 at 4:49 pm

    #494608

    In my experience I have not found any performance issues with regards to storing Images in a Database as oppossed to storing them in a directory on a Server!

    It just means that yor Database will become a lot bigger!

    Kindest Regards,

  • February 19, 2004 at 12:18 am

    #494639

    Thanks - seems that we will be going the way of images stored in Database

  • February 20, 2004 at 1:58 pm

    #495002

    Just a question.  Why wouldn't you just store the path to the Image file in the database?  The database isn't an optimal place to store this type of information.

     

  • February 23, 2004 at 1:11 am

    #495096

    Agreed but the security advantages associated with the storing the images in the DB are the main motivator here. Also, the last project I worked on where images were stored in the filesystem presented extra admin headaches in that we ahd to manage OS account permissions to the folder. If everything's in the DB, the OS tasks are eliminated entirely.

  • February 23, 2004 at 2:26 am

    #495105

    There are pros and cons for each approach. I do also store BLOBs in a db. Mostly ranging from 26kb up to 10MB. No problem this far, but the db isn't accessed frequently and the BLOBs NEVER change at all. Maybe this one http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/prodtechnol/sql/reskit/sql2000/part3/c1161.asp will give some additional insight.

     

    --
    Frank Kalis
    Microsoft SQL Server MVP
    Webmaster: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs
    My blog: http://www.insidesql.org/blogs/frankkalis/[/url]

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply