List:General Discussion« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:<unknown Date:May 23 1999 10:57am
Subject:Re: IMG again-> Which is faster: Storing all images on HD or direct
access through DB
View as plain text  
You'll probably get way better performance if you let the filesystem do
the caching.  Plus, BLOBs aren't exactly high speed.  If I were you (and
I've done a very similar job before) I'd just store filenames and mmap the
files as I need them.  Now that's fast...

---
tani hosokawa
river styx internet


On Sun, 23 May 1999, Hermann-Marcus Behrens wrote:

> Hello again,
> thanks a lot for the very fast answers.
> 
> After exchanging
> 	"$cgi->start_html(-type=>'image/jpeg')"
> with
> 	print "Expires: ", scalar(localtime), "\r\n";
> 	print "Content-length: ", length($$img_ref), "\r\n";
> 	print "Content-type: image/jpeg\r\n\n$$img_ref";
> 
> its working fine now.
> 
> My next question(;-)) : What about the performance, if i store all images(a
> few 1000, between 3-15 KB each) in a local DB. Is it faster for
> Apache(mod_perl installed), if it can access the images directly on the HD,
> so it could cache them. Or is a cgi-implemantation like the one above
> faster?
> 
> Does an apache-module exist, which will fetch the rquested image over a DB,
> store it in memory and response the GET-request directly from memory? This
> could be the fastest solution, or i'm wrong?
> 
> ciao, hermi
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Please check "http://www.mysql.com/Manual_chapter/manual_toc.html" before
> posting. To request this thread, e-mail mysql-thread3770@stripped
> 
> To unsubscribe, send a message to the address shown in the
> List-Unsubscribe header of this message. If you cannot see it,
> e-mail mysql-unsubscribe@stripped instead.
> 

Thread
IMG again-> Which is faster: Storing all images on HD or direct access through DBHermann-Marcus Behrens23 May
  • Re: IMG again-> Which is faster: Storing all images on HD or directaccess through DBunknown23 May