Ed brings up a great point... i would rather not have anyone 'searching' for images in directories and such...
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:53:01 -0700, Ed Lazor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ok... I have some more test results. After optimizing as much as I can > think of, without using caching, I've gotten things down to a 13x > difference. Using Apache's ab performance test, the image comes from a file > at an average of 2ms and from the database (using PHP4) at an average of > 28ms. > > I know... it just reiterates what you were already saying, but it sure is > great to see actual numbers measuring the difference. Maybe the difference > could be even less if I were properly optimizing MySQL. > > The big question still outstanding, for me at least, is whether web page > caching makes the performance difference a mute point. If caching is > storing everything as files, we get the best of both worlds. > > Plus, I think there may be a little bit of a security benefit. A directory > has to be marked as writeable so that scripts can store image files. This > isn't necessary when using MySQL. > > Do you agree with the security benefit? Does webpage caching negate the > performance difference? > > -Ed > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > 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] > > -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
