Re: Re(2): images in databases
Re: Re(2): images in databases
- Subject: Re: Re(2): images in databases
- From: LD <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 09:12:57 +1100
Hi there,
On 27/02/2005, at 8:15 AM, Robert Snyder wrote:
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005, LD wrote:
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.
How is the relationship between the image and an "associated string &
foreign key" improved by using a blob over a file system path entry
that
points to the image?
That wasn't my point. My point was that the theory that says some data
of type x doesn't belong in a db because it is non-relational
disregards the meaning of the word relational. i.e., relationships are
plural in nature; not singular.
But where performance is enhanced by other means - then it makes sense
to pursue other means.
i.e.,
I think it really comes down to using the best tool for the job.
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