The simple answer is no. I found it have difference on network connection
only. I'm using php, I found that using persistent and non-persistent
connection has great impact on using blob (my bold size is about 20k each).

The option to save the image path name depends on your application. I once
using this method. I encountered the following problem:
1. One directory save many files is slow (???,???), you might choose
JFS/XFS if you are using linux.
2. You might need to give read/write permission to your user on the server.
3. Backup two set of data, 1 for firbird, 1 for image.
4. You need to deal with two protocol, one is firebird, one is the file system.
5. Further processing might have difficulties. Say, you save the path name
in linux and you want to use Crystal Report. So, you need to have samba on
linux and map to the correct drive to made this work.
6. You cannot split the application server (e.g. apache with php) and the
DB server, or, you need some tricks to allow the application server upload
images to the data server.

Is the above correct or I'm do something wrong ? Anybody please give comment.

At 02:51 03/10/03 +0000, you wrote:

>Dear all,
>
>I need to attach some tiff images to data records. Each record will
>have 2 tiff of around 200KB. If I save the tiff data in a blob field,
>it will increase the current database size of 200MB to ~6GB. Will it
>hurt database performance significantly? Suppose I am using FB1.5 on
>RedHat 9.
>
>TIA,
>Michael
>
>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>firebird-support-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/