所以我用的是一个在数据库中大量存储图像的应用程序。你对此有什么看法?我更倾向于将位置存储在文件系统中,而不是直接存储在DB中。
你认为优点和缺点是什么?
所以我用的是一个在数据库中大量存储图像的应用程序。你对此有什么看法?我更倾向于将位置存储在文件系统中,而不是直接存储在DB中。
你认为优点和缺点是什么?
当前回答
如果你需要在文件系统中存储大量的图像,需要考虑以下几点:
备份和恢复。你如何保持图像同步。 文件系统的性能。这取决于您正在做的事情和文件系统,但您可能希望实现一个散列机制,这样您就不会有一个包含数十亿个文件的目录。 复制。您是否需要在多个服务器之间保持文件同步?
其他回答
I have worked with many digital storage systems and they all store digital objects on the file system. They tend to use a branch approach, so there will be an archive tree on the file system, often starting with year of entry e.g. 2009, subdirectory will be month e.g. 8 for August, next directory will be day e.g. 11 and sometimes they will use hour as well, the file will then be named with the records persistent ID. Using BLOBS has its advantages and I have heard of it being used often in the IT parts of the chemical industry for storing thousands or millions of photographs and diagrams. It can provide more granular security, a single method of backup, potentially better data integrity and improved inter media searching, Oracle has many features for this within the package they used to call Intermedia (I think it is called something else now). The file system can also have granular security provided through a system such as XACML or another XML type security object. See D Space of Fedora Object Store for examples.
正如其他人所说,SQL 2008提供了一个Filestream类型,允许您将文件名或标识符作为指针存储在db中,并自动将图像存储在您的文件系统中,这是一个很好的场景。
如果您使用的是较旧的数据库,那么我会说,如果您将其存储为blob数据,那么您将无法通过搜索特性的方式从数据库中获得任何内容,因此最好将地址存储在文件系统上,并以这种方式存储图像。
这样还可以节省文件系统上的空间,因为您只会在文件系统上节省确切数量的空间,甚至是压缩的空间。
此外,您可以决定保存一些结构或元素,允许您在文件系统中浏览原始图像而不需要任何db访问,或者将文件批量传输到另一个系统、硬盘驱动器、S3或其他场景—更新程序中的位置,但保留结构,当尝试增加存储空间时,也不需要尝试将图像从db中取出。
也许,它也会允许你抛出一些缓存元素,基于常用的图像url到你的web引擎/程序,所以你也把自己保存在那里。
我负责一些管理许多TB图像的应用程序。我们发现在数据库中存储文件路径是最好的。
这里有几个问题:
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
关于这个话题,这里有一份有趣的白皮书。
是否使用BLOB:数据库或文件系统中的大型对象存储
答案是“视情况而定。”当然,这取决于数据库服务器及其blob存储方法。它还取决于存储在blob中的数据类型,以及如何访问这些数据。
使用数据库作为存储机制,可以有效地存储和传递较小的文件。较大的文件可能最好使用文件系统存储,特别是如果它们将经常被修改/更新。(blob碎片在性能方面成为一个问题。)
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.
SQL Server 2008提供了一个两者兼备的解决方案:文件流数据类型。
像管理普通表一样管理它,并具有文件系统的性能。