Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
Arun.G
Yak Posting Veteran
81 Posts |
 Posted - 2010-06-07 : 07:21:10
|
| In our databases v want to store imageas my opinion storing location(path) fo the image is better than storing image in databasebut development team want to store images itself in dbhow to do it efficientlywhich datatype is very opt for thatonly image datatype is enough?how to call that image in sqlserver 2008 database? |
|
|
pk_bohra
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
1182 Posts |
|
|
Kristen
Test
22859 Posts |
Posted - 2010-06-07 : 08:41:15
|
| Has the opinion on this changed then?If you need security for images, or you need to move Data AND Images to different locations, or you must have ATOMic update of Images and associated data ... THEN storing images in the DB makes sense.If you have a web site storing images in the system slows down rendering for the user and images are unlikely to be cached on user's PC.Images in the database change infrequently but hugely bloat the size of the database, increase the backups (with no ability to set up a hierarchical backup plan, as you could do with files in folder).The increase in database size means that moving database to DEV etc. is also made more cumbersome / slower / etc. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
storing images