这里的诀窍是不要成为一个狂热分子。

这里需要注意的一点是，在专业文件系统阵营中没有人列出特定的文件系统。这是否意味着从FAT16到ZFS可以轻松击败所有数据库?

No.

事实上，许多数据库都胜过许多文件系统，即使我们只讨论原始速度。

正确的做法是为您的精确场景做出正确的决定，要做到这一点，您需要一些数字和一些用例估计。

数据数据库

文件的文件系统

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

DB中的文件路径绝对是可行的方法——我从拥有TB图像的客户那里听到了一个又一个故事，试图在DB中存储大量图像都是一场噩梦——单是性能损失就太大了。

你的网络服务器(我假设你正在使用)是用来处理图像的，而数据库不是。因此，我会大力投反对票。

在数据库中只存储路径(可能还有文件信息)。

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.