[thelist] using ASP and databases for images

rudy limeback r937 at interlog.com
Sat Aug 12 22:20:41 CDT 2000


> 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





More information about the thelist mailing list