Gustav Brock
Gustav at cactus.dk
Thu Jan 24 08:34:27 CST 2008
Hi Arthur and Paul Microsoft seems to address this with the options in 2008 for: Managing Unstructured Data with SQL Server 2008 http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/whitepapers/sql_2008_unstructured.mspx /gustav >>> fuller.artful at gmail.com 24-01-2008 15:08:46 >>> You can nothing and lose plenty by embedding the photos in the DB. Bloat is obviously a consideration, but there are others, too. Consider DB backups: How many redundant copies of the photos do you want? Consider updating the photos. Then you have to obtain the new photo, store it somewhere, and write a stored procedure to update the row. If instead you put all the photos in a directory, and store only a filepath to the particular photo in the DB, then you can update the photos simply by copying the new one(s) to that directory, and change nothing else. Your DB backups will be much quicker and less redundant in content. You can make a backup of the photos directory separately, whenever you wish. A. On 1/24/08, paul.hartland at fsmail.net <paul.hartland at fsmail.net> wrote: > > To all, > > We have an adminstration database, and a couple of months ago built a > utility to scan employee's photo's. Currently we store the photo's under an > employee folder, then have sub-folders with their payroll number. This > seems to work ok, but what is the preferred way, is this method correct, or > should I be storing the photo in the actual table on 2005 against their > record, or would this cause too much bloat to the database ? > > Thanks in advance for any help on this.