I think we all have missed the opportunity to discuss horizontal scaling
when it comes to links vs. blobs. If you store links in the data then you
gain the ability to use edge caches, secondary file servers, web farms,
file farms, network storage and all of those other high-capacity file
services available for cheap vs. needing to buy new hardware and support a
second MySQL server just to serve up image files.
IMHO it's more flexible to your application to store links in the database
and let the files themselves come from systems organized around file
services. It's possible to do so, and practical under certain conditions,
to store files as data but you start running into the "economics of scale"
once you go into "production". Consider this, you get better throughput
from the database when it is both handling queries and pumping out the file
contents? I suggest you let your other file-specific systems take care of
the file/media/image traffic for you and leave your DB server to just
handling queries.
Shawn Green
Database Administrator
Unimin Corporation - Spruce Pine
David Blomstrom
<david_blomstrom@ To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
yahoo.com> cc:
Fax to:
05/20/2004 09:55 Subject: Re: BLOB's - General Guidance
PM
> [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]
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
