[thelist] using ASP and databases for images

kevin raleigh krr at ix.netcom.com
Sun Aug 13 02:16:15 CDT 2000


This sounds like something I wish I could understand.
I haven't even approached databases, sql "define",blobs"define",
clobs"define",

> > Better solution: Keep a varchar field (Text in Access) and store
> > only the physical location of the file. Small database; real quick
> > retrieval and serving of images.
 Used variables in an intro course for C but that as you know is step one of
"variable ( ..)" little humor.
Of course if you had the time and wanted to educate someone that tends to be
very ambitious in learning, and comprehension.
That would be very cool.

Then again without comprehension, It would be hard to say what it is that I
would need to study to begin the first step in working with this
information. I can say that the rudiments of database construction using
Access 97 is feasible, although physically programming it is not. "Thinking
in terms of using the WYSIWYG part of access 97 to build the database."

krr
----- Original Message -----
From: "rudy limeback" <r937 at interlog.com>
To: "evolt thelist" <thelist at lists.evolt.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2000 8:17 PM
Subject: Re: [thelist] using ASP and databases for images


> > BAD idea to hold images in a database. Real bad.
> > Bloats the database and increases the retrieval time,
> > among other things. Rudy will probably tell you the same
> > (and more) too.
>
>
> hi madhu
>
> thanks for the advert    ;o)
>
> the main problem with storing images in a database is that the sql to
> insert them is yucky (that's a technical term that i'm not sure i can
> explain) and the sql to get them out is equally so
>
> not to mention the fact that different databases will handle them
> differently (blobs, clobs, what-have-you)
>
> as for bloat, i don't think that's an issue, because although databases do
> add some storage overhead, with good ones (industrial strength databases)
> the space overhead is a small fraction of total database size -- unless
you
> require a "clustering index" (to keep your records in some kind of
physical
> sequence) which implies you need to keep some free space for inserts....
>
>
> > Better solution: Keep a varchar field (Text in Access) and store
> > only the physical location of the file. Small database; real quick
> > retrieval and serving of images.
>
> yes, sometimes the simplest solutions are best...
>
> store the files in an ordinary file folder or directory. and construct the
> html img tags using the path string that's stored in the varchar field in
> the database
>
>
> rudy.limeback
> r937.com
> evolt.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> For unsubscribe and other options, including
> the Tip Harvester and archive of TheList go to:
> http://lists.evolt.org Workers of the Web, evolt !





More information about the thelist mailing list