On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Michael Black <mdblac...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> I think many people would tell you not to store your images in your >> database. >> Just store a filepath to them. >> That will speed things up quite a bit and even possibly prevent having to >> use an SSD. >> >> With the filepath your processing apps can use file locking too if you need >> it. >> > > Lots of people think this. But experiments suggest otherwise, depending on > the size of your images. > > For BLOBs smaller than about 100KB, it is actually faster to read them out > of an SQLite database than it is out of a file. Presumably the extra > overhead of the open/close is what makes the difference. For BLOBs larger > than 100KB it is faster to store them in a file. That's for reading - I've > never run the experiment for writing. Note also that the 100KB is highly > operating-system and file-system and storage-media dependent and so your > mileage may vary. >
FWIW. My tests are definitely indicating that BLOBs in database are significantly faster. _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
