Hi,
I have asked this question a few months ago and the answer was:
"We see no reason to store images in a db, use a file pointer system"
Thiat is what I do now.( As usual we are talking zillions of prayer cards and other docs.)
But recently I've been reading up on the subject, and to put it simply, there is a very
big reason to put the images inside a db, i.e. to preserve integrity of the whole system.
So I'm asking again:
zillions of images, average < 3mb, the vast majority < 1mb.
They are not Ansell Adams or Jean Loup Sieff images, where shades of grey are important.
The main purpose is that we can read what's on them.
The "file stream" storage attribute seems very well suited for my purposes, if I can find a db that supports it.
So given my simple needs, is the recommendation to put the images inside a db still the same?
Thanks,
Paul
I have asked this question a few months ago and the answer was:
"We see no reason to store images in a db, use a file pointer system"
Thiat is what I do now.( As usual we are talking zillions of prayer cards and other docs.)
But recently I've been reading up on the subject, and to put it simply, there is a very
big reason to put the images inside a db, i.e. to preserve integrity of the whole system.
So I'm asking again:
zillions of images, average < 3mb, the vast majority < 1mb.
They are not Ansell Adams or Jean Loup Sieff images, where shades of grey are important.
The main purpose is that we can read what's on them.
The "file stream" storage attribute seems very well suited for my purposes, if I can find a db that supports it.
So given my simple needs, is the recommendation to put the images inside a db still the same?
Thanks,
Paul
It is more important to do the right thing, than to do the thing right.(P.Drucker)
Better is the enemy of good. (Montesquieu) = French version for 'kiss'.
Better is the enemy of good. (Montesquieu) = French version for 'kiss'.