Ed brings up a great point... i would rather not have anyone
'searching' for images in directories and such...
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 10:53:01 -0700, Ed Lazor <ed.lazor@stripped> wrote:
> Ok... I have some more test results. After optimizing as much as I can
> think of, without using caching, I've gotten things down to a 13x
> difference. Using Apache's ab performance test, the image comes from a file
> at an average of 2ms and from the database (using PHP4) at an average of
> I know... it just reiterates what you were already saying, but it sure is
> great to see actual numbers measuring the difference. Maybe the difference
> could be even less if I were properly optimizing MySQL.
> The big question still outstanding, for me at least, is whether web page
> caching makes the performance difference a mute point. If caching is
> storing everything as files, we get the best of both worlds.
> Plus, I think there may be a little bit of a security benefit. A directory
> has to be marked as writeable so that scripts can store image files. This
> isn't necessary when using MySQL.
> Do you agree with the security benefit? Does webpage caching negate the
> performance difference?
> > -----Original Message-----
> > 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.
> MySQL General Mailing List
> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
> To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=1