[AccessD] OT: SQL Server 2005 & Pictures

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.
>