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.
--
Eric Bergen
eric.bergen@stripped
On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 09:19:47 -0700, Ed Lazor <ed.lazor@stripped> wrote:
> What do you mean "chunked"?
>
> I figured it would be easier to track about 32,000 images in MySQL than in
> files, so I setup a test to see what the performance difference is and if
> storing in MySQL would actually work.
>
> Everything is working and it's a lot easier to keep track of the images in
> MySQL. I ran some performance tests using Apache's ab though and there's a
> huge performance difference - 38 times faster grabbing the file.
>
> It could be my test system here at home. I've asked my ISP to upgrade my
> production server to PHP5 so that I can run tests from there.
>
> There could also be performance hits in the script that grabs the images
> from MySQL, because I tried using OOP. I was told OOP would be a faster
> approach, but I'm pretty new to it and may not have done something
> correctly. I'm going to create some non-OOP scripts to cross-reference the
> tests.
>
> I only have one production server, so I won't be able to separate / dedicate
> servers. Your mention of chunking sounds promising though. Actually, I'd
> appreciate any ideas or recommendations you have.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ed
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: DreamWerx [mailto:dreamwerx@stripped]
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 8:54 AM
> > To: GH
> > Cc: Jigal van Hemert; mysql@stripped
> > Subject: Re: Images
> >
> > Separate/dedicated servers for web/database. All the data was
> > chunked to allow faster streaming/lower overhead (large
> > images/files).. If you have more specific questions I can answer
> > them..
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 11:49:27 -0400, GH <garyhotko@stripped> wrote:
> > > Is there anything special in your setup that you did to have such good
> > > performance?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 11:47:26 -0400, DreamWerx <dreamwerx@stripped>
> > wrote:
> > > > It's an argument that can go on forever... We have 10's of thousands
> > > > of images in mysql databases.. very fast/reliable.. easy to
> > > > replicate, stream, etc..
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 08:42:13 +0200, Jigal van Hemert
> <jigal@stripped>
> > wrote:
> > > > > From: "GH" <GaryHotko@stripped>
> > > > >
> > > > > > I was wondering how to get images into and out of a Mysql
> database
> > > > > > was told it was possible.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have mysql 4.0.18
> > > > >
> > > > > The general opinion is that files should be stored in a file
> system
> > and not
> > > > > a database. There are circumstances that you might want to store
> > binary data
> > > > > in a database.
> > > > > Take a look at the BLOB column types
> > > > > (http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/BLOB.html).
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards, Jigal.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > MySQL General Mailing List
> > > > > For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
> > > > > To unsubscribe:
> > http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=1
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > MySQL General Mailing List
> > For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
> > To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=1
>
>
>
>
> --
> MySQL General Mailing List
> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
> To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=1
>
>
