Contents
Is it bad to store images in database?
Storing images in a database table is not recommended. Storing the image data in the table requires the database server to process and traffic huge amounts of data that could be better spent on processing it is best suited to. A file server can process such image files much better.
Is it a good idea to store files in database?
Then why store files in DB ? DB provides ACID compliance(Atomicity, Consistency, Isolation, Durability) for each row. Backups automatically include files, no extra management of file system necessary. Database indexes perform better than file system trees when more number of items are to be stored.
Is it better to store images in database or file system?
1) Assign unique identifier (GUID) to each image 2) Tag/Name the image with that GUID 3) Store GUID in the OS (File System) 4) Store Fully Qualified File Name (FQN) pointer in the database. Storing images in the database is too expensive in terms of storage and maintenance. Storing just the FQN pointer would provide better solution.
Where do you store images in SQL Server?
The two alternatives, as I see it, is to store the images in the DB (SQL Server) or on the File System. One of the most important issues is performance, for which the File System seems to be the better choise.
Do you backup a database or a filesystem?
There is no one right answer – it depends on circumstances. Personally – keep a file path in the DB and the file on the filesystem. Each has its own strengths. You can backup files as well as databases. This is also the conclusion of this guy, who manages TBs of data.
Which is the best way to store images?
Good luck to you. If you are going to store a large amount of images, file system (FS), is probably the best route to choose from. This is what I have seen/read that most people use. Many also seem to favor saving the file path (and meta data) in the DB and the file itself on the FS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnNbizvb1uM