Storing images in Sql database
in [Server Configuration]
|
Prev: Converting SQL Server 2005 to SQL Express 2008
Next: Never mind, Re: Failed to generate a user instance of SQL Server.Only an integrated connection can generate a user instance.
From: Max Zhao on 27 Mar 2010 00:03 Hi, I currently have a web server with a illustrations folder containing some 100,000 images of all types (gif/jpeg...). The folder is presenting a great management problem since it is really hard to load the entire content of that folder remotely, and it may take minutes to open that folder up. However, we've already installed a ASP.Net Handler in that folder to generate thumbnails, which enables us change the storage option if we wanted. So, the question is, would it be optimal to place all those images in a Sql 2005 Database and retrieve them using an Asp.Net Web handler when demanded? How much slower will that option be? and would it consume a lot of system memory?
From: John Bell on 27 Mar 2010 04:13 On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 12:03:29 +0800, Max Zhao <interarticle(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Hi, I currently have a web server with a illustrations folder containing >some 100,000 images of all types (gif/jpeg...). The folder is presenting >a great management problem since it is really hard to load the entire >content of that folder remotely, and it may take minutes to open that >folder up. However, we've already installed a ASP.Net Handler in that >folder to generate thumbnails, which enables us change the storage >option if we wanted. > >So, the question is, would it be optimal to place all those images in a >Sql 2005 Database and retrieve them using an Asp.Net Web handler when >demanded? How much slower will that option be? and would it consume a >lot of system memory? Hi As you are on SQL Server 2005 then your options to store the images does not include using FILESTREAM, but even if you are using SQL 2008 you may not want to use it if the images are small. Check out http://databases.aspfaq.com/database/should-i-store-images-in-the-database-or-the-filesystem.html John
From: Max Zhao on 27 Mar 2010 08:26 Well, that folder's 12 Gb in size, contains around 190,000 files, and maintaining the images is becoming excessively complicated. Is it worth it to load a 12-Gb folder into a 12-Gb database?
From: Erland Sommarskog on 27 Mar 2010 11:47 Max Zhao (interarticle(a)gmail.com) writes: > Well, that folder's 12 Gb in size, contains around 190,000 files, and > maintaining the images is becoming excessively complicated. > Is it worth it to load a 12-Gb folder into a 12-Gb database? This means that the images are on average 60 KB. That is, far below the limit where reading images from SQL Server can be a performance issue. On the other, hand 190000 files in a regular file-system folder is not a recipe for speed. I would say that it is a good idea to put the images into the database. -- Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel(a)sommarskog.se Links for SQL Server Books Online: SQL 2008: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/sqlserver/cc514207.aspx SQL 2005: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/sqlserver/bb895970.aspx SQL 2000: http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinfo/previousversions/books.mspx
From: Sylvain Lafontaine on 27 Mar 2010 15:37
Split the 100,000 images into different repertories and your problem will be solved. -- Sylvain Lafontaine, ing. MVP - Windows Live Platform Blog/web site: http://coding-paparazzi.sylvainlafontaine.com Independent consultant and remote programming for Access and SQL-Server (French) "Max Zhao" <interarticle(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:uMGL3JWzKHA.1796(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > Hi, I currently have a web server with a illustrations folder containing > some 100,000 images of all types (gif/jpeg...). The folder is presenting > a great management problem since it is really hard to load the entire > content of that folder remotely, and it may take minutes to open that > folder up. However, we've already installed a ASP.Net Handler in that > folder to generate thumbnails, which enables us change the storage > option if we wanted. > > So, the question is, would it be optimal to place all those images in a > Sql 2005 Database and retrieve them using an Asp.Net Web handler when > demanded? How much slower will that option be? and would it consume a > lot of system memory? |