Storing Images : DB or File System -

Question

I read some post in this regard but I still don\'t understand what\'s the best solution in my case.

I\'m start writing a new webApp and the backend is going to provi

Answer 1

Putting all of those images in your database will make it very, very large. This means your DB engine will be busy caching all those images (a task it's not really designed for) when it could be caching hot application data instead.

Leave the file caching up to the OS and/or your reverse proxy - they'll be better at it.

Answer 2

Most large sites use the filesystem.

See Store pictures as files or in the database for a web app?

Answer 3

When dealing with binary objects, follow a document centric approach for architecture, and not store documents like pdf's and images in the database, you will eventually have to refactor it out when you start seeing all kinds of performance issues with your database. Just store the file on the file system and have the path inside a table of your databse. There is also a physical limitation on the size of the data type that you will use to serialize and save it in the database. Just store it on the file system and access it.

Answer 4

We use FileNet, a server optimized for imaging. It's very expensive. A cheaper solution is to use a file server.

Please don't consider storing large files on a database server.

As others have mentioned, store references to the large files in the database.

Answer 5

What database are you using? MS SQL Server 2008 provides FILESTREAM storage

allows storage of and efficient access to BLOB data using a combination of SQL Server 2008 and the NTFS file system. It covers choices for BLOB storage, configuring Windows and SQL Server for using FILESTREAM data, considerations for combining FILESTREAM with other features, and implementation details such as partitioning and performance.

details

Answer 6

Your first sentence says that you've read some posts on the subject, so I won't bother putting in links to articles that cover this. In my experience, and based on what you've posted as far as the number of images and sizes of the images, you're going to pay dearly in DB performance if you store them in the DB. I'd store them on the file system.