文件存储。Facebook的工程师们对此进行了热烈的讨论。一个收获是了解目录中文件的实际限制。

大海捞针:高效存储数十亿张照片

通过网络将二进制数据从数据库中取出会导致巨大的延迟问题，并且伸缩性不好。

将路径存储在数据库中，让你的web服务器承担负载——这就是它的设计目的!

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

当然是文件系统。然后你可以使用所有的操作系统功能来处理这些图像-备份，web服务器，甚至只是使用imagemic之类的工具进行批量修改。如果您将它们存储在DB中，那么您需要编写自己的代码来解决这些问题。

在数据库中只存储映像的文件路径的问题是，不能再强制数据库的完整性。

如果文件路径所指向的实际映像变得不可用，则数据库会不知不觉地出现完整性错误。

考虑到图像是被寻找的实际数据，并且它们可以在一个集成的数据库中更容易地管理(图像不会突然消失)，而不必与某种文件系统(如果文件系统是独立访问的，图像可能会突然“消失”)，我倾向于将它们直接存储为BLOB或类似的文件系统。

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.