Thanks for the link =) I understand what you're saying about MySQL not being designed as a filesystem. I've used this same argument with others. It's just that... well, have performance boosts have decreased the margin of difference? Especially when web-page caching is being used - don't the images get cached as actual files? If so, the original method of storage would be a mute point. That's what I'm trying to find out. What do you think?
-Ed > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Bergen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 9:48 AM > To: Ed Lazor > Cc: DreamWerx; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Images > > Grabbing the file was 38 times faster because MySQL was not designed > to be a filesystem. There are filesystems out there specifically > designed to handle hundreds of thousands of small files. One of the > best is ReiserFS http://www.namesys.com > > If you record the filename in mysql tracking becomes a non issue. -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
