> But that could be due to server capabilities of my ISP (if he has for > example a high tech mysql-server and a relativly slow machine for apache).
Probaly :-) From this page: http://www.mysql.com/information/presentations/presentation-oscon2000-200007 19/ You can read on section 'General tips': - Store BLOB's that you need to access as files in files. Store only the file name in the database. But I guess it also depends on the image size. -- Julio Nobrega Don't eat the yellow snow. "Stefan Rusterholz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 000701c179bb$33c4df30$3c01a8c0@quasimodo">news:000701c179bb$33c4df30$3c01a8c0@quasimodo... > I did do that for a galery-script of myself. I don't have any numbers if > you'r looking for that but my personal impression was, that the picture > output from the mysql-db is actually faster than reading directly from disk. > But that could be due to server capabilities of my ISP (if he has for > example a high tech mysql-server and a relativly slow machine for apache). > > But with a quite fast mysql-server it shouldn't be a problem I think. > > And if it _would_ be a problem, I think there are still more positive > aspects then negatives (easy handling, having stored all important > informations together, fast searching of images with keywords and so on) > > best regards > Stefan Rusterholz, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ---------------------------------- -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
