Re: Re: blob versus file

i also noticed that the images are not cached at all. The other images comming from the FS are cached just fine. Do u think thats because of the blob? Andy "Mark" <maggelet@mminternet.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:20020702034909.033F5559CA@mail.mminternet.com... On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 14:20:30 +0200, Pierre-Alain Joye wrote: >On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 14:17:53 +0200 >"andy" <news.letters@gmx.de> wrote: > >>Hi there, >> >>I am wondering if anybody has experiance in saving images to blob >>in mysql. >> >>I do save images with 1 K and 4 KB to blob fields while I used to >>save them >>to file. It seams to me that this is much slower accessing the >>files. The >>images take a bit (really short but absolutly noticable) to show up >>on the >>site. Is there a way to improve the performance, and why is this >>happening? >>I thought the performance might even boost after storing them to >>blobs. > >Not really, the OS filesystem contains features that makes it always >faster than a sql query not necessarily for small files like he's talking about. it depends on the fs but I would guess they'd be pretty close. >that will increase your network traffic too. only if the db is accessed across a network (he didn't say it was) >Inserting images or whatever binary data in a database does not have>much sense, you could not do a query with this field, cannot be>indexed (dunno if exists a DB that implement a image indexer ;) ). the blob field can't be indexed but others (id, filename, keywords, caption etc..) can, there's lots of cases where it makes sense to put images in a database. if I had to guess the problem I'd say its either 1) the db is across a network like you said or (more likely) 2) you need to create an index on the table. try running the query manually and see how long it takes to get a result set. when you get it down to .01 seconds you;re in good shape hth,