Related
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
So I'm using an app that stores images heavily in the DB. What's your outlook on this? I'm more of a type to store the location in the filesystem, than store it directly in the DB.
What do you think are the pros/cons?
I'm in charge of some applications that manage many TB of images. We've found that storing file paths in the database to be best.
There are a couple of issues:
database storage is usually more expensive than file system storage
you can super-accelerate file system access with standard off the shelf products
for example, many web servers use the operating system's sendfile() system call to asynchronously send a file directly from the file system to the network interface. Images stored in a database don't benefit from this optimization.
things like web servers, etc, need no special coding or processing to access images in the file system
databases win out where transactional integrity between the image and metadata are important.
it is more complex to manage integrity between db metadata and file system data
it is difficult (within the context of a web application) to guarantee data has been flushed to disk on the filesystem
As with most issues, it's not as simple as it sounds. There are cases where it would make sense to store the images in the database.
You are storing images that are
changing dynamically, say invoices and you wanted
to get an invoice as it was on 1 Jan
2007?
The government wants you to maintain 6 years of history
Images stored in the database do not require a different backup strategy. Images stored on filesystem do
It is easier to control access to the images if they are in a database. Idle admins can access any folder on disk. It takes a really determined admin to go snooping in a database to extract the images
On the other hand there are problems associated
Require additional code to extract
and stream the images
Latency may be
slower than direct file access
Heavier load on the database server
File store. Facebook engineers had a great talk about it. One take away was to know the practical limit of files in a directory.
Needle in a Haystack: Efficient Storage of Billions of Photos
This might be a bit of a long shot, but if you're using (or planning on using) SQL Server 2008 I'd recommend having a look at the new FileStream data type.
FileStream solves most of the problems around storing the files in the DB:
The Blobs are actually stored as files in a folder.
The Blobs can be accessed using either a database connection or over the filesystem.
Backups are integrated.
Migration "just works".
However SQL's "Transparent Data Encryption" does not encrypt FileStream objects, so if that is a consideration, you may be better off just storing them as varbinary.
From the MSDN Article:
Transact-SQL statements can insert, update, query, search, and back up FILESTREAM data. Win32 file system interfaces provide streaming access to the data.
FILESTREAM uses the NT system cache for caching file data. This helps reduce any effect that FILESTREAM data might have on Database Engine performance. The SQL Server buffer pool is not used; therefore, this memory is available for query processing.
File paths in the DB is definitely the way to go - I've heard story after story from customers with TB of images that it became a nightmare trying to store any significant amount of images in a DB - the performance hit alone is too much.
In my experience, sometimes the simplest solution is to name the images according to the primary key. So it's easy to find the image that belongs to a particular record, and vice versa. But at the same time you're not storing anything about the image in the database.
The trick here is to not become a zealot.
One thing to note here is that no one in the pro file system camp has listed a particular file system. Does this mean that everything from FAT16 to ZFS handily beats every database?
No.
The truth is that many databases beat many files systems, even when we're only talking about raw speed.
The correct course of action is to make the right decision for your precise scenario, and to do that, you'll need some numbers and some use case estimates.
In places where you MUST guarantee referential integrity and ACID compliance, storing images in the database is required.
You cannot transactionaly guarantee that the image and the meta-data about that image stored in the database refer to the same file. In other words, it is impossible to guarantee that the file on the filesystem is only ever altered at the same time and in the same transaction as the metadata.
As others have said SQL 2008 comes with a Filestream type that allows you to store a filename or identifier as a pointer in the db and automatically stores the image on your filesystem which is a great scenario.
If you're on an older database, then I'd say that if you're storing it as blob data, then you're really not going to get anything out of the database in the way of searching features, so it's probably best to store an address on a filesystem, and store the image that way.
That way you also save space on your filesystem, as you are only going to save the exact amount of space, or even compacted space on the filesystem.
Also, you could decide to save with some structure or elements that allow you to browse the raw images in your filesystem without any db hits, or transfer the files in bulk to another system, hard drive, S3 or another scenario - updating the location in your program, but keep the structure, again without much of a hit trying to bring the images out of your db when trying to increase storage.
Probably, it would also allow you to throw some caching element, based on commonly hit image urls into your web engine/program, so you're saving yourself there as well.
Small static images (not more than a couple of megs) that are not frequently edited, should be stored in the database. This method has several benefits including easier portability (images are transferred with the database), easier backup/restore (images are backed up with the database) and better scalability (a file system folder with thousands of little thumbnail files sounds like a scalability nightmare to me).
Serving up images from a database is easy, just implement an http handler that serves the byte array returned from the DB server as a binary stream.
Here's an interesting white paper on the topic.
To BLOB or Not To BLOB: Large Object Storage in a Database or a Filesystem
The answer is "It depends." Certainly it would depend upon the database server and its approach to blob storage. It also depends on the type of data being stored in blobs, as well as how that data is to be accessed.
Smaller sized files can be efficiently stored and delivered using the database as the storage mechanism. Larger files would probably be best stored using the file system, especially if they will be modified/updated often. (blob fragmentation becomes an issue in regards to performance.)
Here's an additional point to keep in mind. One of the reasons supporting the use of a database to store the blobs is ACID compliance. However, the approach that the testers used in the white paper, (Bulk Logged option of SQL Server,) which doubled SQL Server throughput, effectively changed the 'D' in ACID to a 'd,' as the blob data was not logged with the initial writes for the transaction. Therefore, if full ACID compliance is an important requirement for your system, halve the SQL Server throughput figures for database writes when comparing file I/O to database blob I/O.
One thing that I haven't seen anyone mention yet but is definitely worth noting is that there are issues associated with storing large amounts of images in most filesystems too. For example if you take the approach mentioned above and name each image file after the primary key, on most filesystems you will run into issues if you try to put all of the images in one big directory once you reach a very large number of images (e.g. in the hundreds of thousands or millions).
Once common solution to this is to hash them out into a balanced tree of subdirectories.
Something nobody has mentioned is that the DB guarantees atomic actions, transactional integrity and deals with concurrency. Even referentially integrity is out of the window with a filesystem - so how do you know your file names are really still correct?
If you have your images in a file-system and someone is reading the file as you're writing a new version or even deleting the file - what happens?
We use blobs because they're easier to manage (backup, replication, transfer) too. They work well for us.
The problem with storing only filepaths to images in a database is that the database's integrity can no longer be forced.
If the actual image pointed to by the filepath becomes unavailable, the database unwittingly has an integrity error.
Given that the images are the actual data being sought after, and that they can be managed easier (the images won't suddenly disappear) in one integrated database rather than having to interface with some kind of filesystem (if the filesystem is independently accessed, the images MIGHT suddenly "disappear"), I'd go for storing them directly as a BLOB or such.
At a company where I used to work we stored 155 million images in an Oracle 8i (then 9i) database. 7.5TB worth.
Normally, I'm storngly against taking the most expensive and hardest to scale part of your infrastructure (the database) and putting all load into it. On the other hand: It greatly simplifies backup strategy, especially when you have multiple web servers and need to somehow keep the data synchronized.
Like most other things, It depends on the expected size and Budget.
We have implemented a document imaging system that stores all it's images in SQL2005 blob fields. There are several hundred GB at the moment and we are seeing excellent response times and little or no performance degradation. In addition, fr regulatory compliance, we have a middleware layer that archives newly posted documents to an optical jukebox system which exposes them as a standard NTFS file system.
We've been very pleased with the results, particularly with respect to:
Ease of Replication and Backup
Ability to easily implement a document versioning system
If this is web-based application then there could be advantages to storing the images on a third-party storage delivery network, such as Amazon's S3 or the Nirvanix platform.
Assumption: Application is web enabled/web based
I'm surprised no one has really mentioned this ... delegate it out to others who are specialists -> use a 3rd party image/file hosting provider.
Store your files on a paid online service like
Amazon S3
Moso Cloud Storage
Another StackOverflow threads talking about this here.
This thread explains why you should use a 3rd party hosting provider.
It's so worth it. They store it efficiently. No bandwith getting uploaded from your servers to client requests, etc.
If you're not on SQL Server 2008 and you have some solid reasons for putting specific image files in the database, then you could take the "both" approach and use the file system as a temporary cache and use the database as the master repository.
For example, your business logic can check if an image file exists on disc before serving it up, retrieving from the database when necessary. This buys you the capability of multiple web servers and fewer sync issues.
I'm not sure how much of a "real world" example this is, but I currently have an application out there that stores details for a trading card game, including the images for the cards. Granted the record count for the database is only 2851 records to date, but given the fact that certain cards have are released multiple times and have alternate artwork, it was actually more efficient sizewise to scan the "primary square" of the artwork and then dynamically generate the border and miscellaneous effects for the card when requested.
The original creator of this image library created a data access class that renders the image based on the request, and it does it quite fast for viewing and individual card.
This also eases deployment/updates when new cards are released, instead of zipping up an entire folder of images and sending those down the pipe and ensuring the proper folder structure is created, I simply update the database and have the user download it again. This currently sizes up to 56MB, which isn't great, but I'm working on an incremental update feature for future releases. In addition, there is a "no images" version of the application that allows those over dial-up to get the application without the download delay.
This solution has worked great to date since the application itself is targeted as a single instance on the desktop. There is a web site where all of this data is archived for online access, but I would in no way use the same solution for this. I agree the file access would be preferable because it would scale better to the frequency and volume of requests being made for the images.
Hopefully this isn't too much babble, but I saw the topic and wanted to provide some my insights from a relatively successful small/medium scale application.
SQL Server 2008 offers a solution that has the best of both worlds : The filestream data type.
Manage it like a regular table and have the performance of the file system.
It depends on the number of images you are going to store and also their sizes. I have used databases to store images in the past and my experience has been fairly good.
IMO, Pros of using database to store images are,
A. You don't need FS structure to hold your images
B. Database indexes perform better than FS trees when more number of items are to be stored
C. Smartly tuned database perform good job at caching the query results
D. Backups are simple. It also works well if you have replication set up and content is delivered from a server near to user. In such cases, explicit synchronization is not required.
If your images are going to be small (say < 64k) and the storage engine of your db supports inline (in record) BLOBs, it improves performance further as no indirection is required (Locality of reference is achieved).
Storing images may be a bad idea when you are dealing with small number of huge sized images. Another problem with storing images in db is that, metadata like creation, modification dates must handled by your application.
I have recently created a PHP/MySQL app which stores PDFs/Word files in a MySQL table (as big as 40MB per file so far).
Pros:
Uploaded files are replicated to backup server along with everything else, no separate backup strategy is needed (peace of mind).
Setting up the web server is slightly simpler because I don't need to have an uploads/ folder and tell all my applications where it is.
I get to use transactions for edits to improve data integrity - I don't have to worry about orphaned and missing files
Cons:
mysqldump now takes a looooong time because there is 500MB of file data in one of the tables.
Overall not very memory/cpu efficient when compared to filesystem
I'd call my implementation a success, it takes care of backup requirements and simplifies the layout of the project. The performance is fine for the 20-30 people who use the app.
Im my experience I had to manage both situations: images stored in database and images on the file system with path stored in db.
The first solution, images in database, is somewhat "cleaner" as your data access layer will have to deal only with database objects; but this is good only when you have to deal with low numbers.
Obviously database access performance when you deal with binary large objects is degrading, and the database dimensions will grow a lot, causing again performance loss... and normally database space is much more expensive than file system space.
On the other hand having large binary objects stored in file system will cause you to have backup plans that have to consider both database and file system, and this can be an issue for some systems.
Another reason to go for file system is when you have to share your images data (or sounds, video, whatever) with third party access: in this days I'm developing a web app that uses images that have to be accessed from "outside" my web farm in such a way that a database access to retrieve binary data is simply impossible. So sometimes there are also design considerations that will drive you to a choice.
Consider also, when making this choice, if you have to deal with permission and authentication when accessing binary objects: these requisites normally can be solved in an easier way when data are stored in db.
I once worked on an image processing application. We stored the uploaded images in a directory that was something like /images/[today's date]/[id number]. But we also extracted the metadata (exif data) from the images and stored that in the database, along with a timestamp and such.
In a previous project i stored images on the filesystem, and that caused a lot of headaches with backups, replication, and the filesystem getting out of sync with the database.
In my latest project i'm storing images in the database, and caching them on the filesystem, and it works really well. I've had no problems so far.
Second the recommendation on file paths. I've worked on a couple of projects that needed to manage large-ish asset collections, and any attempts to store things directly in the DB resulted in pain and frustration long-term.
The only real "pro" I can think of regarding storing them in the DB is the potential for easy of individual image assets. If there are no file paths to use, and all images are streamed straight out of the DB, there's no danger of a user finding files they shouldn't have access to.
That seems like it would be better solved with an intermediary script pulling data from a web-inaccessible file store, though. So the DB storage isn't REALLY necessary.
The word on the street is that unless you are a database vendor trying to prove that your database can do it (like, let's say Microsoft boasting about Terraserver storing a bajillion images in SQL Server) it's not a very good idea. When the alternative - storing images on file servers and paths in the database is so much easier, why bother? Blob fields are kind of like the off-road capabilities of SUVs - most people don't use them, those who do usually get in trouble, and then there are those who do, but only for the fun of it.
Storing an image in the database still means that the image data ends up somewhere in the file system but obscured so that you cannot access it directly.
+ves:
database integrity
its easy to manage since you don't have to worry about keeping the filesystem in sync when an image is added or deleted
-ves:
performance penalty -- a database lookup is usually slower that a filesystem lookup
you cannot edit the image directly (crop, resize)
Both methods are common and practiced. Have a look at the advantages and disadvantages. Either way, you'll have to think about how to overcome the disadvantages. Storing in database usually means tweaking database parameters and implement some kind of caching. Using filesystem requires you to find some way of keeping filesystem+database in sync.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
So I'm using an app that stores images heavily in the DB. What's your outlook on this? I'm more of a type to store the location in the filesystem, than store it directly in the DB.
What do you think are the pros/cons?
I'm in charge of some applications that manage many TB of images. We've found that storing file paths in the database to be best.
There are a couple of issues:
database storage is usually more expensive than file system storage
you can super-accelerate file system access with standard off the shelf products
for example, many web servers use the operating system's sendfile() system call to asynchronously send a file directly from the file system to the network interface. Images stored in a database don't benefit from this optimization.
things like web servers, etc, need no special coding or processing to access images in the file system
databases win out where transactional integrity between the image and metadata are important.
it is more complex to manage integrity between db metadata and file system data
it is difficult (within the context of a web application) to guarantee data has been flushed to disk on the filesystem
As with most issues, it's not as simple as it sounds. There are cases where it would make sense to store the images in the database.
You are storing images that are
changing dynamically, say invoices and you wanted
to get an invoice as it was on 1 Jan
2007?
The government wants you to maintain 6 years of history
Images stored in the database do not require a different backup strategy. Images stored on filesystem do
It is easier to control access to the images if they are in a database. Idle admins can access any folder on disk. It takes a really determined admin to go snooping in a database to extract the images
On the other hand there are problems associated
Require additional code to extract
and stream the images
Latency may be
slower than direct file access
Heavier load on the database server
File store. Facebook engineers had a great talk about it. One take away was to know the practical limit of files in a directory.
Needle in a Haystack: Efficient Storage of Billions of Photos
This might be a bit of a long shot, but if you're using (or planning on using) SQL Server 2008 I'd recommend having a look at the new FileStream data type.
FileStream solves most of the problems around storing the files in the DB:
The Blobs are actually stored as files in a folder.
The Blobs can be accessed using either a database connection or over the filesystem.
Backups are integrated.
Migration "just works".
However SQL's "Transparent Data Encryption" does not encrypt FileStream objects, so if that is a consideration, you may be better off just storing them as varbinary.
From the MSDN Article:
Transact-SQL statements can insert, update, query, search, and back up FILESTREAM data. Win32 file system interfaces provide streaming access to the data.
FILESTREAM uses the NT system cache for caching file data. This helps reduce any effect that FILESTREAM data might have on Database Engine performance. The SQL Server buffer pool is not used; therefore, this memory is available for query processing.
File paths in the DB is definitely the way to go - I've heard story after story from customers with TB of images that it became a nightmare trying to store any significant amount of images in a DB - the performance hit alone is too much.
In my experience, sometimes the simplest solution is to name the images according to the primary key. So it's easy to find the image that belongs to a particular record, and vice versa. But at the same time you're not storing anything about the image in the database.
The trick here is to not become a zealot.
One thing to note here is that no one in the pro file system camp has listed a particular file system. Does this mean that everything from FAT16 to ZFS handily beats every database?
No.
The truth is that many databases beat many files systems, even when we're only talking about raw speed.
The correct course of action is to make the right decision for your precise scenario, and to do that, you'll need some numbers and some use case estimates.
In places where you MUST guarantee referential integrity and ACID compliance, storing images in the database is required.
You cannot transactionaly guarantee that the image and the meta-data about that image stored in the database refer to the same file. In other words, it is impossible to guarantee that the file on the filesystem is only ever altered at the same time and in the same transaction as the metadata.
As others have said SQL 2008 comes with a Filestream type that allows you to store a filename or identifier as a pointer in the db and automatically stores the image on your filesystem which is a great scenario.
If you're on an older database, then I'd say that if you're storing it as blob data, then you're really not going to get anything out of the database in the way of searching features, so it's probably best to store an address on a filesystem, and store the image that way.
That way you also save space on your filesystem, as you are only going to save the exact amount of space, or even compacted space on the filesystem.
Also, you could decide to save with some structure or elements that allow you to browse the raw images in your filesystem without any db hits, or transfer the files in bulk to another system, hard drive, S3 or another scenario - updating the location in your program, but keep the structure, again without much of a hit trying to bring the images out of your db when trying to increase storage.
Probably, it would also allow you to throw some caching element, based on commonly hit image urls into your web engine/program, so you're saving yourself there as well.
Small static images (not more than a couple of megs) that are not frequently edited, should be stored in the database. This method has several benefits including easier portability (images are transferred with the database), easier backup/restore (images are backed up with the database) and better scalability (a file system folder with thousands of little thumbnail files sounds like a scalability nightmare to me).
Serving up images from a database is easy, just implement an http handler that serves the byte array returned from the DB server as a binary stream.
Here's an interesting white paper on the topic.
To BLOB or Not To BLOB: Large Object Storage in a Database or a Filesystem
The answer is "It depends." Certainly it would depend upon the database server and its approach to blob storage. It also depends on the type of data being stored in blobs, as well as how that data is to be accessed.
Smaller sized files can be efficiently stored and delivered using the database as the storage mechanism. Larger files would probably be best stored using the file system, especially if they will be modified/updated often. (blob fragmentation becomes an issue in regards to performance.)
Here's an additional point to keep in mind. One of the reasons supporting the use of a database to store the blobs is ACID compliance. However, the approach that the testers used in the white paper, (Bulk Logged option of SQL Server,) which doubled SQL Server throughput, effectively changed the 'D' in ACID to a 'd,' as the blob data was not logged with the initial writes for the transaction. Therefore, if full ACID compliance is an important requirement for your system, halve the SQL Server throughput figures for database writes when comparing file I/O to database blob I/O.
One thing that I haven't seen anyone mention yet but is definitely worth noting is that there are issues associated with storing large amounts of images in most filesystems too. For example if you take the approach mentioned above and name each image file after the primary key, on most filesystems you will run into issues if you try to put all of the images in one big directory once you reach a very large number of images (e.g. in the hundreds of thousands or millions).
Once common solution to this is to hash them out into a balanced tree of subdirectories.
Something nobody has mentioned is that the DB guarantees atomic actions, transactional integrity and deals with concurrency. Even referentially integrity is out of the window with a filesystem - so how do you know your file names are really still correct?
If you have your images in a file-system and someone is reading the file as you're writing a new version or even deleting the file - what happens?
We use blobs because they're easier to manage (backup, replication, transfer) too. They work well for us.
The problem with storing only filepaths to images in a database is that the database's integrity can no longer be forced.
If the actual image pointed to by the filepath becomes unavailable, the database unwittingly has an integrity error.
Given that the images are the actual data being sought after, and that they can be managed easier (the images won't suddenly disappear) in one integrated database rather than having to interface with some kind of filesystem (if the filesystem is independently accessed, the images MIGHT suddenly "disappear"), I'd go for storing them directly as a BLOB or such.
At a company where I used to work we stored 155 million images in an Oracle 8i (then 9i) database. 7.5TB worth.
Normally, I'm storngly against taking the most expensive and hardest to scale part of your infrastructure (the database) and putting all load into it. On the other hand: It greatly simplifies backup strategy, especially when you have multiple web servers and need to somehow keep the data synchronized.
Like most other things, It depends on the expected size and Budget.
We have implemented a document imaging system that stores all it's images in SQL2005 blob fields. There are several hundred GB at the moment and we are seeing excellent response times and little or no performance degradation. In addition, fr regulatory compliance, we have a middleware layer that archives newly posted documents to an optical jukebox system which exposes them as a standard NTFS file system.
We've been very pleased with the results, particularly with respect to:
Ease of Replication and Backup
Ability to easily implement a document versioning system
If this is web-based application then there could be advantages to storing the images on a third-party storage delivery network, such as Amazon's S3 or the Nirvanix platform.
Assumption: Application is web enabled/web based
I'm surprised no one has really mentioned this ... delegate it out to others who are specialists -> use a 3rd party image/file hosting provider.
Store your files on a paid online service like
Amazon S3
Moso Cloud Storage
Another StackOverflow threads talking about this here.
This thread explains why you should use a 3rd party hosting provider.
It's so worth it. They store it efficiently. No bandwith getting uploaded from your servers to client requests, etc.
If you're not on SQL Server 2008 and you have some solid reasons for putting specific image files in the database, then you could take the "both" approach and use the file system as a temporary cache and use the database as the master repository.
For example, your business logic can check if an image file exists on disc before serving it up, retrieving from the database when necessary. This buys you the capability of multiple web servers and fewer sync issues.
I'm not sure how much of a "real world" example this is, but I currently have an application out there that stores details for a trading card game, including the images for the cards. Granted the record count for the database is only 2851 records to date, but given the fact that certain cards have are released multiple times and have alternate artwork, it was actually more efficient sizewise to scan the "primary square" of the artwork and then dynamically generate the border and miscellaneous effects for the card when requested.
The original creator of this image library created a data access class that renders the image based on the request, and it does it quite fast for viewing and individual card.
This also eases deployment/updates when new cards are released, instead of zipping up an entire folder of images and sending those down the pipe and ensuring the proper folder structure is created, I simply update the database and have the user download it again. This currently sizes up to 56MB, which isn't great, but I'm working on an incremental update feature for future releases. In addition, there is a "no images" version of the application that allows those over dial-up to get the application without the download delay.
This solution has worked great to date since the application itself is targeted as a single instance on the desktop. There is a web site where all of this data is archived for online access, but I would in no way use the same solution for this. I agree the file access would be preferable because it would scale better to the frequency and volume of requests being made for the images.
Hopefully this isn't too much babble, but I saw the topic and wanted to provide some my insights from a relatively successful small/medium scale application.
SQL Server 2008 offers a solution that has the best of both worlds : The filestream data type.
Manage it like a regular table and have the performance of the file system.
It depends on the number of images you are going to store and also their sizes. I have used databases to store images in the past and my experience has been fairly good.
IMO, Pros of using database to store images are,
A. You don't need FS structure to hold your images
B. Database indexes perform better than FS trees when more number of items are to be stored
C. Smartly tuned database perform good job at caching the query results
D. Backups are simple. It also works well if you have replication set up and content is delivered from a server near to user. In such cases, explicit synchronization is not required.
If your images are going to be small (say < 64k) and the storage engine of your db supports inline (in record) BLOBs, it improves performance further as no indirection is required (Locality of reference is achieved).
Storing images may be a bad idea when you are dealing with small number of huge sized images. Another problem with storing images in db is that, metadata like creation, modification dates must handled by your application.
I have recently created a PHP/MySQL app which stores PDFs/Word files in a MySQL table (as big as 40MB per file so far).
Pros:
Uploaded files are replicated to backup server along with everything else, no separate backup strategy is needed (peace of mind).
Setting up the web server is slightly simpler because I don't need to have an uploads/ folder and tell all my applications where it is.
I get to use transactions for edits to improve data integrity - I don't have to worry about orphaned and missing files
Cons:
mysqldump now takes a looooong time because there is 500MB of file data in one of the tables.
Overall not very memory/cpu efficient when compared to filesystem
I'd call my implementation a success, it takes care of backup requirements and simplifies the layout of the project. The performance is fine for the 20-30 people who use the app.
Im my experience I had to manage both situations: images stored in database and images on the file system with path stored in db.
The first solution, images in database, is somewhat "cleaner" as your data access layer will have to deal only with database objects; but this is good only when you have to deal with low numbers.
Obviously database access performance when you deal with binary large objects is degrading, and the database dimensions will grow a lot, causing again performance loss... and normally database space is much more expensive than file system space.
On the other hand having large binary objects stored in file system will cause you to have backup plans that have to consider both database and file system, and this can be an issue for some systems.
Another reason to go for file system is when you have to share your images data (or sounds, video, whatever) with third party access: in this days I'm developing a web app that uses images that have to be accessed from "outside" my web farm in such a way that a database access to retrieve binary data is simply impossible. So sometimes there are also design considerations that will drive you to a choice.
Consider also, when making this choice, if you have to deal with permission and authentication when accessing binary objects: these requisites normally can be solved in an easier way when data are stored in db.
I once worked on an image processing application. We stored the uploaded images in a directory that was something like /images/[today's date]/[id number]. But we also extracted the metadata (exif data) from the images and stored that in the database, along with a timestamp and such.
In a previous project i stored images on the filesystem, and that caused a lot of headaches with backups, replication, and the filesystem getting out of sync with the database.
In my latest project i'm storing images in the database, and caching them on the filesystem, and it works really well. I've had no problems so far.
Second the recommendation on file paths. I've worked on a couple of projects that needed to manage large-ish asset collections, and any attempts to store things directly in the DB resulted in pain and frustration long-term.
The only real "pro" I can think of regarding storing them in the DB is the potential for easy of individual image assets. If there are no file paths to use, and all images are streamed straight out of the DB, there's no danger of a user finding files they shouldn't have access to.
That seems like it would be better solved with an intermediary script pulling data from a web-inaccessible file store, though. So the DB storage isn't REALLY necessary.
The word on the street is that unless you are a database vendor trying to prove that your database can do it (like, let's say Microsoft boasting about Terraserver storing a bajillion images in SQL Server) it's not a very good idea. When the alternative - storing images on file servers and paths in the database is so much easier, why bother? Blob fields are kind of like the off-road capabilities of SUVs - most people don't use them, those who do usually get in trouble, and then there are those who do, but only for the fun of it.
Storing an image in the database still means that the image data ends up somewhere in the file system but obscured so that you cannot access it directly.
+ves:
database integrity
its easy to manage since you don't have to worry about keeping the filesystem in sync when an image is added or deleted
-ves:
performance penalty -- a database lookup is usually slower that a filesystem lookup
you cannot edit the image directly (crop, resize)
Both methods are common and practiced. Have a look at the advantages and disadvantages. Either way, you'll have to think about how to overcome the disadvantages. Storing in database usually means tweaking database parameters and implement some kind of caching. Using filesystem requires you to find some way of keeping filesystem+database in sync.
When working with mysql, it is a bad idea to store images as BLOB in the database, as it makes the database quite large which is harmful for normal usage of the database. Then, it is better to save image files on disk and save link to them within the database.
However, I think this is different for MongoDB, as increasing the database file size has a negligible influence on performance (this is the reason that MongoDB can successfully handle billions of records).
Do you think it is better to save image files on MongoDB (as GridFS) to reduce number of files stored on the server; or still it is better to keep the database as small as possible?
The problem isn't so much that the database gets big, databases can handle that (although MongoDB isn't as good as many other in that respect). The problem is that to send the data to the client it first has to be moved into RAM by the database, then copied over to the application's memory, then handed off to the kernel to be sent through the socket. It's wasting lots of RAM and CPU cycles. The reason it's better to have large files in the filesystem is that it's easier to get around copying it, you can ask the kernel to stream the file from disk to the socket directly.
The downside of storing large files in the filesystem is that it's much harder to distribute. Using a database, and something like Mongo's GridFS makes it possible to scale out. You just have to make sure you don't copy the whole file into the application's memory at once, but a chunk at a time. Most web app frameworks have some support for sending chunked HTTP responses nowadays.
The answer is yes. Back in the old cave-man days, servers had mutable file systems you could change. This was great till we tried to scale things.
Cave-people nowadays build apps with immutable deployments. Heroku and Dokku are examples of this. Because the web app server has no state, they can be created, upgraded, scaled, and destroyed easily.
Since we still have files, we need to put them somewhere. There are several solutions: nfs, our database, someone elses database.
nfs is a 'network file system' which let's you do file i/o on network resources. If you're dealing with the network anyways, IMHO it doesn't add much value unless it's what you know already.
Our database - For MongoDB there are two options: (file > 16mb) ? GridFS : BinData
Someone elses database - Some are basic like Amazon S3 and some offer extra services like Cloudinary or Dropbox.
If you're on an big-budget enterprise team and someone spends 40 hrs a week taking care of servers then sure - use the file system. If you're building web apps that scale, putting files in the DB makes sense.
If you're concerned about performance:
1) Using a proxy (e.g. nginx) or a CDN to host your content for clients. Your server should just be serving cache misses.
2) Use streaming IO Nodeschool has a cool tutorial for Node.js.
Storing images is not a good idea in any DB, because:
read/write to a DB is always slower than a filesystem
your DB backups grow to be huge and more time consuming
access to the files now requires going through your app and DB layers
The last two are the real killers.
Source: Three things you should never put in your database.
So if you can make your application crafty, then better not to upload your pictures to MongoDB.
However, if you are close to deadline... and the database will be so small that it will not grow up a lot and its size will never exceed the available RAM on the machine running your application, then I think (as opposed to the author of the cited article), you may consider storing the images in MongoDB. It's simply, convenient, quick to implement and gives you some flexibility.
MongoDB's GridFS is designed for this sort of storage and is quite handy for storing image files across many different servers in a way that all servers can use them.
I have an application where every user gets there own database and runs from the same file system folder. (the database is determined by sub domain)
Storing in the filesystem could lead to conflict. I'd imagine the images upload would be small. (I would scale them down before storing)
Is it ok in this case to store in database?
(I know this has been asked a lot)
I also want to make my application easy to install and creating a writable folder is hard for some people)
To take the contrary view from Nathanial -- I find it easier to use the data base to store opaque data like images. When you back up the data base, you automatically get a backup of the images. Also, you can retrieve, update, or delete the image along with all the other data in integrated SQL queries; keeping the files separately means writing much more complex code that has to go out to the file system to maintain data integrity every time you issue certain SQL queries. Locking can be a big problem, and transaction processing (especially rollback) even bigger.
Seems like you've already sort of talked yourself into it, but in my experience it's better to store files in a filesystem and data in a database. Use GUID's for the file names if you are worried about a conflict.
Pasting my answer from a similar post: I have implemented both solutions (file system and database-persisted images) in previous projects. In my opinion, you should store images in your database. Here's why:
File system storage is more complicated when your app servers are
clustered. You have to have shared storage. Even if your current
environment is not clustered, this makes it more difficult to scale
up when you need to
You should be using a CDN for your static
content anyways, and set your app up as the origin. This means that
your app will only be hit once for a given image, then it will be
cached on the CDN. CloudFront is dirt cheap and simple to set
up...there's no reason not to use it. Save your bandwidth for your
dynamic content.
It's much quicker (and thus cheaper) to develop
database persisted images
You get referential integrity with
database persisted images. If you're storing images on the file
system, you will inevitably have orphan files with no matching
database records, or you'll have database records with broken file
links. This WILL happen...it's just a matter of time. You'll have to
write something to clean these up.
Anyways, my two cents.
I am implementing a project that deals with a significant amount of images.
In your opinion what are the cons/pros of the following two approaches:
I need to store thousands of items, each item as several string properties and an image.
Each item as an ID (integer)
MyISAM tables
How would you store the images:
approach 1: store images into a directory and each image named as ID.jpg
approach 2: store images into the database as a binary BLOB
Using approach 1 I can access the image directly and that's it
<img src="same_directory/10.jpg" />
Using approach 2, I can still use the above HTML, but need to redirect that jpg access to a PHP script which will return the real image from the DB.
In terms of performance which one do you think its faster?
I am keen to approach 1.
advantages of approach 1:
Retrieving the flat file form webserver is more faster.
most of the web hosts likely to follow this approach.
the file system is faster for flat file storage.
advantages of approach 2:
All your data is kept in one place, if you migrate your
website/database the images will just be there
Its easier to sort/delete/etc...
Since you have to serve it via a PHP script, you can perform
additional things such as security if required, or image processing
(obviously you can do this with flat file too, but you have to make
sure the security cant be bypassed by leaving the images in a public
directory).
considering performance approach 1 is best to proceed.
Storing on filesystem is faster.
I'm be tempted to use the first approach as there's no real value in cluttering up the database with image data. (Fetching the data from the database will also be significantly slower than simply loading it off disk.)
However, as an suggestion you might not want to store the full path on disk to the image in the database table, to aid portability in the future. (i.e.: Just store the portion of the path and filename off a 'known' base folder.)
Keep the image files as image files on the server to lower your DB load and allow the server to handle caching etc.
Overall it really depends on the kind of images we're talking about. Small thumbnails (e.g. for file icons) wouldn't be that bad, but I wouldn't store whole images in the DB. In general I guess the file system approach would be faster.
Lets investigate problem on web browser.
When you load page with 10 pictures saved in database. You browser send new http request to the server. Each request init DB connection and server side script. Or just read static image from the file system.
what will be faster?
Other part - get data from file system or database. If we do not use cache for the database (but for 10 GB of images you should have 10 GB RAM to cache this data). Database and HTTP server reads data from file system in any case. But I think HTTP browser reads data faster then Database server.
Only one thing cons for the Database storage - very easy to migrate data from one server to other. But this is not matter for system performance.
And do not forget make path for images like /a/b/c/abc.jpg - it will be faster for big amount of images, then put all images in one directory.