At 12:36 PM -0500 7/19/06, Jay Blanchard wrote:
>[snip]
>... some research ...
>[/snip]
>
>So, am I to assume that this issue about storing images in databases is
>dead?
Yes, it was dead before it started, as it was the last time this issue was
discussed.
Simply put, there are tradeoffs, but bot
[snip]
... some research ...
[/snip]
So, am I to assume that this issue about storing images in databases is
dead?
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[snip]
Kevin, you have more than once pointed out using a RAW format for
operating the data system, what exactly do you mean? The database
becomes the OS? If so, how do you set that up? It is something that I am
not totally familiar with.
[/snip]
I did some research and went back to Kevin's origi
[snip]
...a lot of stuff started by my original answer...
[/snip]
While this has been a fine debate I find that the discussion has
deteriorated badly. Can we bring it back on point?
There are a lot of us using MySQL (and PostGreSQL) along with PHP and in
practice we have found that storing images
This one time, at band camp, "Richard Lynch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Assume, for the sake of argument, that your hard drive crashed.
>
> And your backup tape was invalid.
>
> And the weekly backup tape is also invalid.
>
> And, for good measuere, the monthly tape is just so out-of-date, t
Richard Lynch wrote:
Given the number of posts here in PHP-General alone, of people getting
tripped up by these things, I have concluded that cramming images into
the DB is far more trouble than it is worth.
It *seems* like a Good Idea until you actually do it for awhile, and
then run into all
On Fri, July 14, 2006 9:52 pm, Kevin Waterson wrote:
>
>
>> I'm more concerned about the disaster recovery of a DB from a
>> crashed
>> hard drive, which has been cluttered up with binary data, making
>> data
>> recovery.
>
> One of the greatest benifits of binary DB storage is a single point
> of
This one time, at band camp, "Richard Lynch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm more concerned about the disaster recovery of a DB from a crashed
> hard drive, which has been cluttered up with binary data, making data
> recovery.
One of the greatest benifits of binary DB storage is a single point
On Thu, July 13, 2006 6:49 pm, Kevin Waterson wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, "Richard Lynch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If you've benchmarked on YOUR hardware and have a proven savings,
>> fine, post your tests and output.
>
> Already done in previous threads.
Actually, to be pedantic,
This one time, at band camp, "Richard Lynch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you've benchmarked on YOUR hardware and have a proven savings,
> fine, post your tests and output.
Already done in previous threads.
nowhere do I say the db is faster than file system. Just that various methods
of db
On Thu, July 13, 2006 1:25 pm, Kevin Waterson wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, "Richard Lynch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>> It's coming FROM THE FILE SYSTEM.
>
> databases can be stored on RAW partitions, thus eliminating FILE
> SYSTEM
> overhead
And are you actually doing this, or merel
On Tue, July 11, 2006 11:38 am, Eric Butera wrote:
> I don't see a problem with storing images in the DB IF they aren't
> going to be continually accessed that way. For example say you have a
> script that lets a user upload an image and creates a small, medium,
> and large view out of it. Stick
This one time, at band camp, "Richard Lynch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You really need to TEST your assumption about the DB being faster.
Do you _really_ think I am speaking without testing any of this??
I once wrote an article on this very topic in PHP mag and published the
benchmarks.
Kev
This one time, at band camp, "Richard Lynch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's coming FROM THE FILE SYSTEM.
databases can be stored on RAW partitions, thus eliminating FILE SYSTEM
overhead
Kevin
--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed
On Tue, July 11, 2006 1:48 am, Kevin Waterson wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Austin Denyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> It is generally accepted that storing things like that in a database
>> is
>> a Bad Thing. Much better to store the images as files and store the
>> path in the databas
On 7/11/06, Adam Zey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The time taken per request, though (and that's about all we can get with
a concurrency as low as 5) doesn't tell us much. We also don't know
exactly what the PHP code is doing, how it does it, how your database is
organized/indexed/accessed, if you
[snip]
How much of a performance hit?
[/snip]
Here is an interesting read;
http://mysqldump.azundris.com/archives/36-Serving-Images-From-A-Database
.html
"Your system receives a number of file read requests, requesting it to
load a number of blocks from the disk into the mysqld process.
Eventual
Eric Butera wrote:
On 7/11/06, Kevin Waterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How much of a performance hit?
Kevin
--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsu
On 7/11/06, Kevin Waterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How much of a performance hit?
Kevin
--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http
This one time, at band camp, Larry Garfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There may be other reasons you'd want to store binary data in an SQL
> database,
> but it will always be a performance hit over just passing a normal file that
> can be streamed right off the disk to the server's NIC.
Ho
This one time, at band camp, Austin Denyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is generally accepted that storing things like that in a database is
> a Bad Thing. Much better to store the images as files and store the
> path in the database.
Storing paths and databases in slower than just storing i
This one time, at band camp, "Jay Blanchard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. Do not store images in a database, it is just a bad idea from a
> performance perspective (as has been covered many times heretofore).
rubbish, has been proven other wise, you are quoting old wives tales
Please provide
On Monday 10 July 2006 09:31, Peter Lauri wrote:
> [snip]
> 1. Do not store images in a database, it is just a bad idea from a
> performance perspective (as has been covered many times heretofore).
> [/snip]
>
> Is that really the case? Is this not depending on the application? :) My
> application
Peter Lauri wrote:
>
> [snip]
> 1. Do not store images in a database, it is just a bad idea from a
> performance perspective (as has been covered many times heretofore).
> [/snip]
>
> Is that really the case? Is this not depending on the application? :) My
> application will never grow, and I can
[snip]
1. Do not store images in a database, it is just a bad idea from a
performance perspective (as has been covered many times heretofore).
[/snip]
Is that really the case? Is this not depending on the application? :) My
application will never grow, and I can easily just change the file storag
[snip]
I am creating images via GD and want to save them to the database. Right
now
I save them to the disk and then save them to the database. Is it
possible
to write them directly to the database and skip the middle step where I
temporary write it to the hard disk?
[/snip]
1. Do not store images
Best group member,
I am creating images via GD and want to save them to the database. Right now
I save them to the disk and then save them to the database. Is it possible
to write them directly to the database and skip the middle step where I
temporary write it to the hard disk?
Best regard
27 matches
Mail list logo
