Thanks for your suggestion,
I will go for blob storage, because our application will maintain the data on yearly
basis[stupersonal2008, stupersonal2009 etc.]. So i feel we may not face such kind of
performance issue in our application.
From: Johan De Meersman <vegivamp@stripped>
To: Vikram A <vikkiatbipl@stripped>
Cc: MY SQL Mailing list <mysql@stripped>
Sent: Fri, 12 February, 2010 2:23:01 PM
Subject: Re: how things get messed up
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Vikram A <vikkiatbipl@stripped> wrote:
I am in the situation to storing student and staff images. every year 2000 new photos has
to be added in our application.
>Can i have your suggestion, which is the best one, storing as a blob Or using NFS?
>>It will be great help to me, because such experts are sharing your own experience
on this binary storage issue.
I never said you had to grovel, though :-p
This whole thread has been a discussion of just that. My personal opinion is that it's
better to store binary objects (like images) out-of-band, for instance on an NFS system
like you suggest. Other people on the list have made their own arguments for BLOB storage.
In the end, it's down to your own situation and decisions, but I will keep defending the
position that filesystems are made for storing files, and databases are made for storing
data - it saves you on both database and PHP requests, as (from a web point of view) you
can't return the image data inside your HTML - it requires a second HTTP call. Filesystem
image serving, however, could perfectly be offloaded to a subdomain that runs a
lightweight, threaded HTTP server that need not run the heavy PHP processes. You could
even run that on your NFS server, if you want.
If you do go for BLOBs, though, for god's sake keep them in a separate table, lest you
fragment your datafiles. Split records are a disaster for performance.
Bier met grenadyn
Is als mosterd by den wyn
Sy die't drinkt, is eene kwezel
Hy die't drinkt, is ras een ezel
The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage.