Re: images in databases
Re: images in databases
- Subject: Re: images in databases
- From: LD <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 07:26:17 +1100
Hi there,
On 26/02/2005, at 7:46 AM, PA wrote:
On Feb 25, 2005, at 21:35, Thomas Pelaia wrote:
I think storing images and attachments in a database works very well.
There is no questioning that it "does work" if you want it to.
The question is rather why would you want to store opaque binary data
in a relational database in the first place? What is so relational
about a BLOB that it warrant being dumped in a database?
The question is: Of what relational significance is any 'single' field
of data? Unless it has an associated meaning it is not relational but
singular (and without meaning).
Take Key Value coding as an example. Are the keys meaningful without
associated values or values meaningful without associated keys? No. But
together they form a whole. The BLOB may not be index-able, but an
associated string & foreign key can.
More to the point, relationships are defined by two or more of any
subtype of Object, no? Therefore, BLOB's can't be excluded from best
practices of db storage on this basis (seeing as the theory doesn't
seem to hold true) - but possibly because of other reasons as b.bum
points out.
with regards,
--
Lachlan Deck
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden