This question came up about two weeks ago. I have 8+ years in document
management and am familiar with several systems that store images (including
our own product, Optix, http://www.mindwrap.com/products/optix.html). Storing
images or other files in the database is not typical; frankly, I don't know
any large system that does (I'm talking about systems with hundreds of
thousands to millions of images). Instead, the administrator sets up one or
more storage profiles. When a record is stored, the document management
software places it in to the specified storage profile and computes an object
number that uniquely identifies the file's name and location. The name is a
hex number and the extension identifies the file's revision (for when it is
updated). File information such as the actual file name, the creation date,
file type, etc. are stored in a database table. FileNet works much the same
way.

This method is also flexible across databases. We originally developed our
product on Informix. Now we support Informix, Oracle, Sybase, MS-SQL,
and--yes--Firebird, without having to struggle with differences between how
different db's manage BLOBs.

I've stored images in BLOBs (or whatever Sybase's equivalent is) years ago but
that was only a few dozen small images. When you get up into the hundreds,
you're better off coming up with a method for putting the images into the
file system. Afterall, that's what file systems are made to do.

On Monday 04 October 2004 12:47, Raigo wrote:
> I need to develop a file and document managament system. My question:
> would it be a good idea to store all files in Firebird BLOB?
>...