Hello.
On Wed 2002-07-03 at 09:42:52 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
> I was thinking more of an application like an access control system, where
> there might be tens of thousands of photographs of people, each a jpeg of a
> small number of K, or a catalogue, again with thousands of tiny photos.
>
> The experiment I did with 500,000 operating system files was to see whether
> smallish blobs (bits of text, in this case, which I didn't need to search or
> index) were better stored as disk files or in an SQL Server database. The
> database won hands down on all counts.
Well, you did *not* put all 500.000 files in one directory, did you?
I had a similar setting for some years (about 12GB of data in about
1.2 Mio. files at the end) stored in a directory hierachy and had no
particular performance problems (at least once I started to avoid
having more than 5.000 files in one dir ;-). About 50-100 random
accesses/sec sustained at high time (including all the rest: web
server, database server, etc...).
Btw, this was still under Linux 2.0, Alpha 300MHz? SCSI (which is
beaten performance-wise by any desktop PC nowadays).
I mean not to say, that a SQL database would not have been able to
handle this. But a filesystem is an specialized hierachical database,
and I have yet to see an (more general) SQL database wins hands down
in the preferred domain of the file system - of course, a reasonable
implementation presumed (which ext2 IMHO is).
Bye,
Benjamin.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Before posting, please check:
http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual)
http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive)
To request this thread, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To unsubscribe, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
