You might want to read it again. He is saying the performance and consistancy exists in the database whereas it doesn't in a file system.
--ja On Thu, 20 May 2004, David Blomstrom wrote: > > [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]
