SQL Server 7.0 for storing images?

SQL Server 7.0 for storing images?

Post by Jon Davi » Tue, 30 Mar 1999 04:00:00


Some argue that it is better to use the file system for storing images and
use SQL Server for storing pathnames or URLs to those images, but there is
so much more flexibility on the programming end of things when the images
are stored right into the database.  I understand that the "blob scheme" for
storing image data in a separate "blob" than the rest of the database and
storing all the image data in a single blob can invite corruption, but how
likely is this scenario?  I'm also interested in processor overhead and
speed--wouldn't it be a lot slower to work off pointers to file paths and
pull the data from the filesystem than to pull the data right out of the
database?

Would I really be shooting myself in the foot if I used the SQL server for
storing several dynamically administrated thumbnail images than if I
programatically saved the images as files and used pointers in the SQL
server?  I'm interested in comments from either point of view.  Thanks.

Jon

 
 
 

SQL Server 7.0 for storing images?

Post by bill robiso » Tue, 30 Mar 1999 04:00:00



> Some argue that it is better to use the file system for storing images and
> use SQL Server for storing pathnames or URLs to those images, but there is
> so much more flexibility on the programming end of things when the images
> are stored right into the database.  I understand that the "blob scheme" for
> storing image data in a separate "blob" than the rest of the database and
> storing all the image data in a single blob can invite corruption, but how
> likely is this scenario?  I'm also interested in processor overhead and
> speed--wouldn't it be a lot slower to work off pointers to file paths and
> pull the data from the filesystem than to pull the data right out of the
> database?

> Would I really be shooting myself in the foot if I used the SQL server for
> storing several dynamically administrated thumbnail images than if I
> programatically saved the images as files and used pointers in the SQL
> server?  I'm interested in comments from either point of view.  Thanks.

> Jon

You'll get lots of opinions on this one, as the utility of the
solution varies with the needs of your application and the
preferences of the designer or programmer. It can be more diffi-
cult to retrieve images from the database than the filesystem, and
I suspect this would put off people from using the database. Personally,
I prefer to keep things simple as possible, so I have stored image
data in the database where possible to simplify administration. I
like this approach, because it simplifies backups, reduces the
likelihood of dangling references, and as you mention, simplifies
I/O.

I've never encountered problems of data corruption to date (crossed
fingers). The problems of programmatically maintaining consistency
with filesystem objects seems more of a risk to me.

As I said, though, YMMV-- particularly if your application is such
that it is easier/more efficient/whatever to store the objects in the
filesystem, e.g., if you primarily access the BLOb data from non-data-
base processes, or if the objects are not related to other data in the
database.

regards,

billr

 
 
 

SQL Server 7.0 for storing images?

Post by Andre Guerrer » Wed, 31 Mar 1999 04:00:00


Microsoft definately believes SQL 7 is good for storing images.  Check
out http://terraserver.microsoft.com for more information.  Granted they
have unbelievable hardware but it's proof that storing/retrieving
images  in a sql db is very possible.  I've personally never tried it
but have a project coming down the pike where I will be doing this.  The
word on the street was that you were crazy to do this in 6.5.

Andre


> Some argue that it is better to use the file system for storing images and
> use SQL Server for storing pathnames or URLs to those images, but there is
> so much more flexibility on the programming end of things when the images
> are stored right into the database.  I understand that the "blob scheme" for
> storing image data in a separate "blob" than the rest of the database and
> storing all the image data in a single blob can invite corruption, but how
> likely is this scenario?  I'm also interested in processor overhead and
> speed--wouldn't it be a lot slower to work off pointers to file paths and
> pull the data from the filesystem than to pull the data right out of the
> database?

> Would I really be shooting myself in the foot if I used the SQL server for
> storing several dynamically administrated thumbnail images than if I
> programatically saved the images as files and used pointers in the SQL
> server?  I'm interested in comments from either point of view.  Thanks.

> Jon

 
 
 

1. SQL Server 7.0 for storing images?

Some argue that it is better to use the file system for storing images and
use SQL Server for storing pathnames or URLs to those images, but there is
so much more flexibility on the programming end of things when the images
are stored right into the database.  I understand that the "blob scheme" for
storing image data in a separate "blob" than the rest of the database and
storing all the image data in a single blob can invite corruption, but how
likely is this scenario?  I'm also interested in processor overhead and
speed--wouldn't it be a lot slower to work off pointers to file paths and
pull the data from the filesystem than to pull the data right out of the
database?

Would I really be shooting myself in the foot if I used the SQL server for
storing several dynamically administrated thumbnail images than if I
programatically saved the images as files and used pointers in the SQL
server?  I'm interested in comments from either point of view.  Thanks.

Jon

2. Crystal reports and time

3. Store image by using image datatype in SQL 7.0

4. Singleton SELECT blocking UPDATE

5. Storing Images in SQL Server 7.0

6. Multiple instances and performance

7. Store and retrieve image on SQL server 7.0 using VB 6.0

8. Database Connectivity with Servlets!

9. store a .dat file using VC++ into SQL server 7.0 as an image field

10. Image datatype, and storing images in SQL server

11. How to store images through stored procedures in SQL Server

12. Suggestions for storing images in SQL Server vs storing references to physical paths

13. Storing images in SQL 7.0