RE: Images

[Ed Lazor]

Thanks for the link =)  

I understand what you're saying about MySQL not being designed as a
filesystem.  I've used this same argument with others.  It's just that...
well, have performance boosts have decreased the margin of difference?
Especially when web-page caching is being used - don't the images get cached
as actual files?  If so, the original method of storage would be a mute
point.  That's what I'm trying to find out.  What do you think?

-Ed



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Bergen [mailto:eric.bergen@stripped]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 9:48 AM
> To: Ed Lazor
> Cc: DreamWerx; mysql@stripped
> Subject: Re: Images
> 
> Grabbing the file was 38 times faster because MySQL was not designed
> to be a filesystem. There are filesystems out there specifically
> designed to handle hundreds of thousands of small files. One of the
> best is ReiserFS http://www.namesys.com
> 
> If you record the filename in mysql tracking becomes a non issue.