Subject | Re: [firebird-support] Database for images |
---|---|
Author | Alexandre Benson Smith |
Post date | 2007-05-07T20:53:01Z |
Hi Aege,
Aage Johansen wrote:
What I could say is:
1.) Blob Pages are not shared between blob's, so the tendency is to have
more unused/wasted space with big page sizes (ok, HD space is not
important nowadays)
2.) If a Blob is small enough to fit in the data page it will be, so
less records will be stored on the same page which increases the number
of pages to be read (So small page size should avoid this)
But I would go for 16kb page, and have a test for performance and size
on 8kb and probably 4kb too and see if it's significant.
see you !
--
Alexandre Benson Smith
Development
THOR Software e Comercial Ltda
Santo Andre - Sao Paulo - Brazil
www.thorsoftware.com.br
Aage Johansen wrote:
> Thanks for the input!Why I could not ask ;-) Just Kidding !
>
> Once scanned, the images are never changed. Some may be deleted, and
> some may be replaced. Some may have their key data changed - this seems
> easier with a database solution. (This - and the reasons why - will be
> difficult to explain, so don't ask!).
>
> There were no comments on the suitability (or not) of 16KB pages (asI think a bit of experimentation will be necessary.
> opposed to 8KB/4KB).
>
What I could say is:
1.) Blob Pages are not shared between blob's, so the tendency is to have
more unused/wasted space with big page sizes (ok, HD space is not
important nowadays)
2.) If a Blob is small enough to fit in the data page it will be, so
less records will be stored on the same page which increases the number
of pages to be read (So small page size should avoid this)
But I would go for 16kb page, and have a test for performance and size
on 8kb and probably 4kb too and see if it's significant.
see you !
--
Alexandre Benson Smith
Development
THOR Software e Comercial Ltda
Santo Andre - Sao Paulo - Brazil
www.thorsoftware.com.br