> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Another perspective on the subject of BLOB vs.
> Links.
> >
> > Links are easier to implement and may be an OK way
> to start. However, a file system is really a crude
> database, and I emphasize "crude". It's not very
> good at handling high transaction rates, access from
> multiple machines, or volume.
> >
> > If your application grows quickly and before you
> know it you have hundreds of folders with thousands
> of files in each - your file system will slow to a
> crawl. All the performance, security, and
> consistancy features developers have worked so hard
> to put into database engines don't or barely exist
> in file systems.
> >
> > So - if you go the link approach - you'll be fine
> for a while, but when you see the directory
> structure starting to buckle - it might be time to
> give BLOBs another look.
I'm confused. It sounds like you're basicallly saying
that databases slow down as they grow bigger. That's
logical.
But then you suggest that, when a database begins to
get too big, BLOBs may be better than storing links.
I don't understand that. How can storing images as
BLOBs be more efficient that creating a field that
simply stores links to those images? Or am I missing
something?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Domains – Claim yours for only $14.70/year
http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
