Am Mon, 12 Nov 2007 23:41:59 +0000 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > Andreas Volz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I'll tell you my current situation. I implemented a web cache > > function for images and other data in my application. In the past I > > saved the data on the hard disk with a special name and had a text > > file with the relation "cache file name <-> url". But I didn't like > > it. Now I like to evaluate sqlite as solution. > > > > So my question is about the binary data. Is it better to insert the > > images and other media data (e.g. videos with < 10 MB of size) into > > the DB or only a "pointer" to a file laying around on my hard disk? > > I would estimate a maximum DB size of several hundred MB. > > > > How good/bad is reading/writing this data into a BLOB compared to > > write it as file beside the DB and write only a small name into the > > DB? Where is the difference between both ways regarding memory and > > CPU usage? > > > > BTW: My current use case writes data slow, but reads data fast. > > Reading BLOB's must be as fast as reading on the hard disk. > > > > In my studies, BLOB I/O is faster than disk I/O for BLOBs of about > 50KiB or less on Linux. Disk I/O is faster for larger BLOBs. I > have received reports that the transition threshold is about 14KiB > on win32. In my experiements, BLOB I/O is about 10% slower than > direct disk I/O for multi-megabyte blobs.
Less than 50 kiB would be nice at least for images and HTML files. I'll give it a try and do my own experiments. Thanks for your experience so far. regards Andreas ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
