"Samuel Neff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If the images you're storing are larger than the defined page size for the > database (which is most likely the case) then you can get better performance > and reduced memory consumption by storing the images in the file system and > store only paths to the files in the database. This means reading the large > amount of data directly from the file system instead of from sqlite's > linked-list of pages and bypassing the page caching layer (which you > probably don't want for images anyways) and freeing up more of the page > cache for real database data. >
One would think. And yet experiments suggest otherwise. It turns out to be faster to read images directly out of SQLite BLOBs until the image gets up to about 15KB on windows and up to about 60KB on linux. And even for much larger images, the performance difference between reading from SQLite and reading from a file is not that great, so it is a reasonable thing to do to read from SQLite if transactions are important to you or if it is just more convenient. -- D. Richard Hipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
