Sean, do you have any specific reasons for storing files on disk rather than in blobs? I've done
this before, mostly to avoid the hassle of blobs (no offense to anyone intended) and ... heck, it
was on a webserver, and it was easier to let the server handle the images than have a script ask
the database for them ...

but are there any other reasons, besides just convenience, for storing images (and other blob
objects) on disk rather than the database?

reasons to use blobs include: you don't have to go hunting for files on a disk, by name, where they
might get moved ... and a single db connection is enough to get to the 'files' ... and access is
restricted by permissions in the database, not an outside scheme ...

is there any known -large- lag from trying to retrieve blobs from a db rather than disk, if you
know what you want? (not a long-running query in the first place, just simple retrieval)

-philip

---------- Original Message -----------
From: "Leyne, Sean" <sleyne@...>
To: <ib-support@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 20:10:16 -0400
Subject: RE: [ib-support] 32 vs 64 bit?

[snip]

> > I've got an existing db that I need to add a table to that
> > has large blobs (graphics files).
>
> I would recommend storing the files as separate OS files in a specific
> path, and only store the filename in the DB.
>
> Sean