Hello,
I must save up to 20GB of Image and Pdf's in a sqlserver db.
Is it better to hold the table with these BLOB's in a seperate DB or
in the same db where all the other tables are present (100 tables)?
Are there a performance problem if the BLOB table ist in the same as
the other data?
Robert
Same DB.
If you're concerned about IO performance at all you can always create
another filegroup consisting of a file on a different disk (or RAID
group) and create the image table on that filegroup. But having the
image data reside on the same disk as all the other tables shouldn't
affect query performance of those other tables (at least not in any
noticeable way).
Putting it in a separate filegroup would really only give you a little
more flexibility with backup/restore strategies (as you could back up &
restore the image data separately to the data in all your other tables,
which may or may not be handy for you).
*mike hodgson* |/ database administrator/ | mallesons stephen jaques
*T* +61 (2) 9296 3668 |* F* +61 (2) 9296 3885 |* M* +61 (408) 675 907
*E* mailto:mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com |* W* http://www.mallesons.com
robert madrian wrote:
>Hello,
>I must save up to 20GB of Image and Pdf's in a sqlserver db.
>Is it better to hold the table with these BLOB's in a seperate DB or
>in the same db where all the other tables are present (100 tables)?
>Are there a performance problem if the BLOB table ist in the same as
>the other data?
>Robert
>
>
|||The only reason I could imagine for putting the blobs, etc in a separate DB
is IF you wish to backup/restore them separately from the other database...
The price/penalty you pay for separating them is that you would have to use
DTC to do a single transaction which updates both databases.
I would put them together... ( SQL 2005 will allow separate backup restore
of filegroups anyway. ) so put them on a separate filegroup now, but in the
same database.
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"robert madrian" <office@.madrian.at> wrote in message
news:uJkNqFOZFHA.2688@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I must save up to 20GB of Image and Pdf's in a sqlserver db.
> Is it better to hold the table with these BLOB's in a seperate DB or
> in the same db where all the other tables are present (100 tables)?
> Are there a performance problem if the BLOB table ist in the same as
> the other data?
> Robert
>
|||In addition, try to describe the contents about the LOB as much as possible
with other data. I also typically segragate the LOBs from the primary data
into a segmented table and relate them 1 to 1 with the original table. This
way, I only have the JOIN ID and the LOB itself, in a table itself, in a
filegroup and file itself.
Why, because although SQL Server 2000 supports LOBS, it does a really lousy
job managing the space, especially if there are a lot of inserts and
deletes. The space reclaimation is lousy. Also, lets face it, LOBs have
nothing to do with the "descriptive" data of the database. It is just
convenient, high priced, storage and retreival. It should be segmented away
anyway.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Mike Hodgson" <mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uVFN%23ROZFHA.3280@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Same DB.
If you're concerned about IO performance at all you can always create
another filegroup consisting of a file on a different disk (or RAID group)
and create the image table on that filegroup. But having the image data
reside on the same disk as all the other tables shouldn't affect query
performance of those other tables (at least not in any noticeable way).
Putting it in a separate filegroup would really only give you a little more
flexibility with backup/restore strategies (as you could back up & restore
the image data separately to the data in all your other tables, which may or
may not be handy for you).
mike hodgson | database administrator | mallesons stephen jaques
T +61 (2) 9296 3668 | F +61 (2) 9296 3885 | M +61 (408) 675 907
E mailto:mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com | W http://www.mallesons.com
robert madrian wrote:
Hello,
I must save up to 20GB of Image and Pdf's in a sqlserver db.
Is it better to hold the table with these BLOB's in a seperate DB or
in the same db where all the other tables are present (100 tables)?
Are there a performance problem if the BLOB table ist in the same as
the other data?
Robert
sql
Showing posts with label hold. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hold. Show all posts
Monday, March 26, 2012
Images and PDF's in the same DB or in another DB?
Hello,
I must save up to 20GB of Image and Pdf's in a sqlserver db.
Is it better to hold the table with these BLOB's in a seperate DB or
in the same db where all the other tables are present (100 tables)?
Are there a performance problem if the BLOB table ist in the same as
the other data?
RobertSame DB.
If you're concerned about IO performance at all you can always create
another filegroup consisting of a file on a different disk (or RAID
group) and create the image table on that filegroup. But having the
image data reside on the same disk as all the other tables shouldn't
affect query performance of those other tables (at least not in any
noticeable way).
Putting it in a separate filegroup would really only give you a little
more flexibility with backup/restore strategies (as you could back up &
restore the image data separately to the data in all your other tables,
which may or may not be handy for you).
*mike hodgson* |/ database administrator/ | mallesons stephen jaques
*T* +61 (2) 9296 3668 |* F* +61 (2) 9296 3885 |* M* +61 (408) 675 907
*E* mailto:mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com |* W* http://www.mallesons.com
robert madrian wrote:
>Hello,
>I must save up to 20GB of Image and Pdf's in a sqlserver db.
>Is it better to hold the table with these BLOB's in a seperate DB or
>in the same db where all the other tables are present (100 tables)?
>Are there a performance problem if the BLOB table ist in the same as
>the other data?
>Robert
>
>|||The only reason I could imagine for putting the blobs, etc in a separate DB
is IF you wish to backup/restore them separately from the other database...
The price/penalty you pay for separating them is that you would have to use
DTC to do a single transaction which updates both databases.
I would put them together... ( SQL 2005 will allow separate backup restore
of filegroups anyway. ) so put them on a separate filegroup now, but in the
same database.
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"robert madrian" <office@.madrian.at> wrote in message
news:uJkNqFOZFHA.2688@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I must save up to 20GB of Image and Pdf's in a sqlserver db.
> Is it better to hold the table with these BLOB's in a seperate DB or
> in the same db where all the other tables are present (100 tables)?
> Are there a performance problem if the BLOB table ist in the same as
> the other data?
> Robert
>|||In addition, try to describe the contents about the LOB as much as possible
with other data. I also typically segragate the LOBs from the primary data
into a segmented table and relate them 1 to 1 with the original table. This
way, I only have the JOIN ID and the LOB itself, in a table itself, in a
filegroup and file itself.
Why, because although SQL Server 2000 supports LOBS, it does a really lousy
job managing the space, especially if there are a lot of inserts and
deletes. The space reclaimation is lousy. Also, lets face it, LOBs have
nothing to do with the "descriptive" data of the database. It is just
convenient, high priced, storage and retreival. It should be segmented away
anyway.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Mike Hodgson" <mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uVFN%23ROZFHA.3280@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Same DB.
If you're concerned about IO performance at all you can always create
another filegroup consisting of a file on a different disk (or RAID group)
and create the image table on that filegroup. But having the image data
reside on the same disk as all the other tables shouldn't affect query
performance of those other tables (at least not in any noticeable way).
Putting it in a separate filegroup would really only give you a little more
flexibility with backup/restore strategies (as you could back up & restore
the image data separately to the data in all your other tables, which may or
may not be handy for you).
mike hodgson | database administrator | mallesons stephen jaques
T +61 (2) 9296 3668 | F +61 (2) 9296 3885 | M +61 (408) 675 907
E mailto:mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com | W http://www.mallesons.com
robert madrian wrote:
Hello,
I must save up to 20GB of Image and Pdf's in a sqlserver db.
Is it better to hold the table with these BLOB's in a seperate DB or
in the same db where all the other tables are present (100 tables)?
Are there a performance problem if the BLOB table ist in the same as
the other data?
Robert
I must save up to 20GB of Image and Pdf's in a sqlserver db.
Is it better to hold the table with these BLOB's in a seperate DB or
in the same db where all the other tables are present (100 tables)?
Are there a performance problem if the BLOB table ist in the same as
the other data?
RobertSame DB.
If you're concerned about IO performance at all you can always create
another filegroup consisting of a file on a different disk (or RAID
group) and create the image table on that filegroup. But having the
image data reside on the same disk as all the other tables shouldn't
affect query performance of those other tables (at least not in any
noticeable way).
Putting it in a separate filegroup would really only give you a little
more flexibility with backup/restore strategies (as you could back up &
restore the image data separately to the data in all your other tables,
which may or may not be handy for you).
*mike hodgson* |/ database administrator/ | mallesons stephen jaques
*T* +61 (2) 9296 3668 |* F* +61 (2) 9296 3885 |* M* +61 (408) 675 907
*E* mailto:mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com |* W* http://www.mallesons.com
robert madrian wrote:
>Hello,
>I must save up to 20GB of Image and Pdf's in a sqlserver db.
>Is it better to hold the table with these BLOB's in a seperate DB or
>in the same db where all the other tables are present (100 tables)?
>Are there a performance problem if the BLOB table ist in the same as
>the other data?
>Robert
>
>|||The only reason I could imagine for putting the blobs, etc in a separate DB
is IF you wish to backup/restore them separately from the other database...
The price/penalty you pay for separating them is that you would have to use
DTC to do a single transaction which updates both databases.
I would put them together... ( SQL 2005 will allow separate backup restore
of filegroups anyway. ) so put them on a separate filegroup now, but in the
same database.
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"robert madrian" <office@.madrian.at> wrote in message
news:uJkNqFOZFHA.2688@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I must save up to 20GB of Image and Pdf's in a sqlserver db.
> Is it better to hold the table with these BLOB's in a seperate DB or
> in the same db where all the other tables are present (100 tables)?
> Are there a performance problem if the BLOB table ist in the same as
> the other data?
> Robert
>|||In addition, try to describe the contents about the LOB as much as possible
with other data. I also typically segragate the LOBs from the primary data
into a segmented table and relate them 1 to 1 with the original table. This
way, I only have the JOIN ID and the LOB itself, in a table itself, in a
filegroup and file itself.
Why, because although SQL Server 2000 supports LOBS, it does a really lousy
job managing the space, especially if there are a lot of inserts and
deletes. The space reclaimation is lousy. Also, lets face it, LOBs have
nothing to do with the "descriptive" data of the database. It is just
convenient, high priced, storage and retreival. It should be segmented away
anyway.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Mike Hodgson" <mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uVFN%23ROZFHA.3280@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Same DB.
If you're concerned about IO performance at all you can always create
another filegroup consisting of a file on a different disk (or RAID group)
and create the image table on that filegroup. But having the image data
reside on the same disk as all the other tables shouldn't affect query
performance of those other tables (at least not in any noticeable way).
Putting it in a separate filegroup would really only give you a little more
flexibility with backup/restore strategies (as you could back up & restore
the image data separately to the data in all your other tables, which may or
may not be handy for you).
mike hodgson | database administrator | mallesons stephen jaques
T +61 (2) 9296 3668 | F +61 (2) 9296 3885 | M +61 (408) 675 907
E mailto:mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com | W http://www.mallesons.com
robert madrian wrote:
Hello,
I must save up to 20GB of Image and Pdf's in a sqlserver db.
Is it better to hold the table with these BLOB's in a seperate DB or
in the same db where all the other tables are present (100 tables)?
Are there a performance problem if the BLOB table ist in the same as
the other data?
Robert
Images and PDF's in the same DB or in another DB?
Hello,
I must save up to 20GB of Image and Pdf's in a sqlserver db.
Is it better to hold the table with these BLOB's in a seperate DB or
in the same db where all the other tables are present (100 tables)?
Are there a performance problem if the BLOB table ist in the same as
the other data?
RobertThis is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--040906000104030808000509
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Same DB.
If you're concerned about IO performance at all you can always create
another filegroup consisting of a file on a different disk (or RAID
group) and create the image table on that filegroup. But having the
image data reside on the same disk as all the other tables shouldn't
affect query performance of those other tables (at least not in any
noticeable way).
Putting it in a separate filegroup would really only give you a little
more flexibility with backup/restore strategies (as you could back up &
restore the image data separately to the data in all your other tables,
which may or may not be handy for you).
--
*mike hodgson* |/ database administrator/ | mallesons stephen jaques
*T* +61 (2) 9296 3668 |* F* +61 (2) 9296 3885 |* M* +61 (408) 675 907
*E* mailto:mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com |* W* http://www.mallesons.com
robert madrian wrote:
>Hello,
>I must save up to 20GB of Image and Pdf's in a sqlserver db.
>Is it better to hold the table with these BLOB's in a seperate DB or
>in the same db where all the other tables are present (100 tables)?
>Are there a performance problem if the BLOB table ist in the same as
>the other data?
>Robert
>
>
--040906000104030808000509
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<tt>Same DB.<br>
<br>
If you're concerned about IO performance at all you can always create
another filegroup consisting of a file on a different disk (or RAID
group) and create the image table on that filegroup. But having the
image data reside on the same disk as all the other tables shouldn't
affect query performance of those other tables (at least not in any
noticeable way).<br>
<br>
Putting it in a separate filegroup would really only give you a little
more flexibility with backup/restore strategies (as you could back up
& restore the image data separately to the data in all your other
tables, which may or may not be handy for you).<br>
</tt>
<div class="moz-signature">
<title></title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<p><span lang="en-au"><font face="Tahoma" size="2">--<br>
</font> </span><b><span lang="en-au"><font face="Tahoma" size="2">mike
hodgson</font></span></b><span lang="en-au"> <font face="Tahoma"
size="2">|</font><i><font face="Tahoma"> </font><font face="Tahoma"
size="2"> database administrator</font></i><font face="Tahoma" size="2">
| mallesons</font><font face="Tahoma"> </font><font face="Tahoma"
size="2">stephen</font><font face="Tahoma"> </font><font face="Tahoma"
size="2"> jaques</font><font face="Tahoma"><br>
</font><b><font face="Tahoma" size="2">T</font></b><font face="Tahoma"
size="2"> +61 (2) 9296 3668 |</font><b><font face="Tahoma"> </font><font
face="Tahoma" size="2"> F</font></b><font face="Tahoma" size="2"> +61
(2) 9296 3885 |</font><b><font face="Tahoma"> </font><font
face="Tahoma" size="2">M</font></b><font face="Tahoma" size="2"> +61
(408) 675 907</font><br>
<b><font face="Tahoma" size="2">E</font></b><font face="Tahoma" size="2">
<a href="http://links.10026.com/?link=mailto:mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com">
mailto:mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com</a> |</font><b><font
face="Tahoma"> </font><font face="Tahoma" size="2">W</font></b><font
face="Tahoma" size="2"> <a href="http://links.10026.com/?link=/">http://www.mallesons.com">
http://www.mallesons.com</a></font></span> </p>
</div>
<br>
<br>
robert madrian wrote:
<blockquote cite="miduJkNqFOZFHA.2688@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hello,
I must save up to 20GB of Image and Pdf's in a sqlserver db.
Is it better to hold the table with these BLOB's in a seperate DB or
in the same db where all the other tables are present (100 tables)?
Are there a performance problem if the BLOB table ist in the same as
the other data?
Robert
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
--040906000104030808000509--|||The only reason I could imagine for putting the blobs, etc in a separate DB
is IF you wish to backup/restore them separately from the other database...
The price/penalty you pay for separating them is that you would have to use
DTC to do a single transaction which updates both databases.
I would put them together... ( SQL 2005 will allow separate backup restore
of filegroups anyway. ) so put them on a separate filegroup now, but in the
same database.
--
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"robert madrian" <office@.madrian.at> wrote in message
news:uJkNqFOZFHA.2688@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I must save up to 20GB of Image and Pdf's in a sqlserver db.
> Is it better to hold the table with these BLOB's in a seperate DB or
> in the same db where all the other tables are present (100 tables)?
> Are there a performance problem if the BLOB table ist in the same as
> the other data?
> Robert
>|||In addition, try to describe the contents about the LOB as much as possible
with other data. I also typically segragate the LOBs from the primary data
into a segmented table and relate them 1 to 1 with the original table. This
way, I only have the JOIN ID and the LOB itself, in a table itself, in a
filegroup and file itself.
Why, because although SQL Server 2000 supports LOBS, it does a really lousy
job managing the space, especially if there are a lot of inserts and
deletes. The space reclaimation is lousy. Also, lets face it, LOBs have
nothing to do with the "descriptive" data of the database. It is just
convenient, high priced, storage and retreival. It should be segmented away
anyway.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Mike Hodgson" <mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uVFN%23ROZFHA.3280@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Same DB.
If you're concerned about IO performance at all you can always create
another filegroup consisting of a file on a different disk (or RAID group)
and create the image table on that filegroup. But having the image data
reside on the same disk as all the other tables shouldn't affect query
performance of those other tables (at least not in any noticeable way).
Putting it in a separate filegroup would really only give you a little more
flexibility with backup/restore strategies (as you could back up & restore
the image data separately to the data in all your other tables, which may or
may not be handy for you).
--
mike hodgson | database administrator | mallesons stephen jaques
T +61 (2) 9296 3668 | F +61 (2) 9296 3885 | M +61 (408) 675 907
E mailto:mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com | W http://www.mallesons.com
robert madrian wrote:
Hello,
I must save up to 20GB of Image and Pdf's in a sqlserver db.
Is it better to hold the table with these BLOB's in a seperate DB or
in the same db where all the other tables are present (100 tables)?
Are there a performance problem if the BLOB table ist in the same as
the other data?
Robert
I must save up to 20GB of Image and Pdf's in a sqlserver db.
Is it better to hold the table with these BLOB's in a seperate DB or
in the same db where all the other tables are present (100 tables)?
Are there a performance problem if the BLOB table ist in the same as
the other data?
RobertThis is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--040906000104030808000509
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Same DB.
If you're concerned about IO performance at all you can always create
another filegroup consisting of a file on a different disk (or RAID
group) and create the image table on that filegroup. But having the
image data reside on the same disk as all the other tables shouldn't
affect query performance of those other tables (at least not in any
noticeable way).
Putting it in a separate filegroup would really only give you a little
more flexibility with backup/restore strategies (as you could back up &
restore the image data separately to the data in all your other tables,
which may or may not be handy for you).
--
*mike hodgson* |/ database administrator/ | mallesons stephen jaques
*T* +61 (2) 9296 3668 |* F* +61 (2) 9296 3885 |* M* +61 (408) 675 907
*E* mailto:mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com |* W* http://www.mallesons.com
robert madrian wrote:
>Hello,
>I must save up to 20GB of Image and Pdf's in a sqlserver db.
>Is it better to hold the table with these BLOB's in a seperate DB or
>in the same db where all the other tables are present (100 tables)?
>Are there a performance problem if the BLOB table ist in the same as
>the other data?
>Robert
>
>
--040906000104030808000509
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<tt>Same DB.<br>
<br>
If you're concerned about IO performance at all you can always create
another filegroup consisting of a file on a different disk (or RAID
group) and create the image table on that filegroup. But having the
image data reside on the same disk as all the other tables shouldn't
affect query performance of those other tables (at least not in any
noticeable way).<br>
<br>
Putting it in a separate filegroup would really only give you a little
more flexibility with backup/restore strategies (as you could back up
& restore the image data separately to the data in all your other
tables, which may or may not be handy for you).<br>
</tt>
<div class="moz-signature">
<title></title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<p><span lang="en-au"><font face="Tahoma" size="2">--<br>
</font> </span><b><span lang="en-au"><font face="Tahoma" size="2">mike
hodgson</font></span></b><span lang="en-au"> <font face="Tahoma"
size="2">|</font><i><font face="Tahoma"> </font><font face="Tahoma"
size="2"> database administrator</font></i><font face="Tahoma" size="2">
| mallesons</font><font face="Tahoma"> </font><font face="Tahoma"
size="2">stephen</font><font face="Tahoma"> </font><font face="Tahoma"
size="2"> jaques</font><font face="Tahoma"><br>
</font><b><font face="Tahoma" size="2">T</font></b><font face="Tahoma"
size="2"> +61 (2) 9296 3668 |</font><b><font face="Tahoma"> </font><font
face="Tahoma" size="2"> F</font></b><font face="Tahoma" size="2"> +61
(2) 9296 3885 |</font><b><font face="Tahoma"> </font><font
face="Tahoma" size="2">M</font></b><font face="Tahoma" size="2"> +61
(408) 675 907</font><br>
<b><font face="Tahoma" size="2">E</font></b><font face="Tahoma" size="2">
<a href="http://links.10026.com/?link=mailto:mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com">
mailto:mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com</a> |</font><b><font
face="Tahoma"> </font><font face="Tahoma" size="2">W</font></b><font
face="Tahoma" size="2"> <a href="http://links.10026.com/?link=/">http://www.mallesons.com">
http://www.mallesons.com</a></font></span> </p>
</div>
<br>
<br>
robert madrian wrote:
<blockquote cite="miduJkNqFOZFHA.2688@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hello,
I must save up to 20GB of Image and Pdf's in a sqlserver db.
Is it better to hold the table with these BLOB's in a seperate DB or
in the same db where all the other tables are present (100 tables)?
Are there a performance problem if the BLOB table ist in the same as
the other data?
Robert
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
--040906000104030808000509--|||The only reason I could imagine for putting the blobs, etc in a separate DB
is IF you wish to backup/restore them separately from the other database...
The price/penalty you pay for separating them is that you would have to use
DTC to do a single transaction which updates both databases.
I would put them together... ( SQL 2005 will allow separate backup restore
of filegroups anyway. ) so put them on a separate filegroup now, but in the
same database.
--
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"robert madrian" <office@.madrian.at> wrote in message
news:uJkNqFOZFHA.2688@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hello,
> I must save up to 20GB of Image and Pdf's in a sqlserver db.
> Is it better to hold the table with these BLOB's in a seperate DB or
> in the same db where all the other tables are present (100 tables)?
> Are there a performance problem if the BLOB table ist in the same as
> the other data?
> Robert
>|||In addition, try to describe the contents about the LOB as much as possible
with other data. I also typically segragate the LOBs from the primary data
into a segmented table and relate them 1 to 1 with the original table. This
way, I only have the JOIN ID and the LOB itself, in a table itself, in a
filegroup and file itself.
Why, because although SQL Server 2000 supports LOBS, it does a really lousy
job managing the space, especially if there are a lot of inserts and
deletes. The space reclaimation is lousy. Also, lets face it, LOBs have
nothing to do with the "descriptive" data of the database. It is just
convenient, high priced, storage and retreival. It should be segmented away
anyway.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Mike Hodgson" <mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uVFN%23ROZFHA.3280@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Same DB.
If you're concerned about IO performance at all you can always create
another filegroup consisting of a file on a different disk (or RAID group)
and create the image table on that filegroup. But having the image data
reside on the same disk as all the other tables shouldn't affect query
performance of those other tables (at least not in any noticeable way).
Putting it in a separate filegroup would really only give you a little more
flexibility with backup/restore strategies (as you could back up & restore
the image data separately to the data in all your other tables, which may or
may not be handy for you).
--
mike hodgson | database administrator | mallesons stephen jaques
T +61 (2) 9296 3668 | F +61 (2) 9296 3885 | M +61 (408) 675 907
E mailto:mike.hodgson@.mallesons.nospam.com | W http://www.mallesons.com
robert madrian wrote:
Hello,
I must save up to 20GB of Image and Pdf's in a sqlserver db.
Is it better to hold the table with these BLOB's in a seperate DB or
in the same db where all the other tables are present (100 tables)?
Are there a performance problem if the BLOB table ist in the same as
the other data?
Robert
Images and complications
This may possibly be the wrong place to ask this question, but never mind. I
am in the process of creating a table to hold images, from which crystal
reports will be used to access the images. I have inserted jpg's into the ne
w
table, but they do not show in the report.
The next logical move was to have a look at the example DB's that ship with
SQL, starting with Pubs. The Pub_info has an image field, so I tried
reporting from that, still no images being displayed in the report.
Next I tried the Employees table in the Northwind db, the photo field is an
images field. These images were displayed with no problems.
Which leads to my actual question/s, does anyone know what the differences
are between the images stored in the northwind database and the pubs
database, are they different file formats (jpeg, gif, etc)?, or are there an
y
other differences?.
As a matter of interest I imported the images from the northwind db into my
new images table and the report read those fine as well.
Any help or pointers much appreciated.I dont see any specific differences in the databases and the images fields.
You might want to explore on the images specifics with Crystal reports side
I suppose. Just a distant shot ...
HTH,
Vinod Kumar
MCSE, DBA, MCAD, MCSD
http://www.extremeexperts.com
Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp
"Martin Barrett" <MartinBarrett@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B3522CB8-C863-402B-8255-2796CFEB4C2A@.microsoft.com...
> This may possibly be the wrong place to ask this question, but never mind.
I
> am in the process of creating a table to hold images, from which crystal
> reports will be used to access the images. I have inserted jpg's into the
new
> table, but they do not show in the report.
> The next logical move was to have a look at the example DB's that ship
with
> SQL, starting with Pubs. The Pub_info has an image field, so I tried
> reporting from that, still no images being displayed in the report.
> Next I tried the Employees table in the Northwind db, the photo field is
an
> images field. These images were displayed with no problems.
> Which leads to my actual question/s, does anyone know what the differences
> are between the images stored in the northwind database and the pubs
> database, are they different file formats (jpeg, gif, etc)?, or are there
any
> other differences?.
> As a matter of interest I imported the images from the northwind db into
my
> new images table and the report read those fine as well.
> Any help or pointers much appreciated.
am in the process of creating a table to hold images, from which crystal
reports will be used to access the images. I have inserted jpg's into the ne
w
table, but they do not show in the report.
The next logical move was to have a look at the example DB's that ship with
SQL, starting with Pubs. The Pub_info has an image field, so I tried
reporting from that, still no images being displayed in the report.
Next I tried the Employees table in the Northwind db, the photo field is an
images field. These images were displayed with no problems.
Which leads to my actual question/s, does anyone know what the differences
are between the images stored in the northwind database and the pubs
database, are they different file formats (jpeg, gif, etc)?, or are there an
y
other differences?.
As a matter of interest I imported the images from the northwind db into my
new images table and the report read those fine as well.
Any help or pointers much appreciated.I dont see any specific differences in the databases and the images fields.
You might want to explore on the images specifics with Crystal reports side
I suppose. Just a distant shot ...
HTH,
Vinod Kumar
MCSE, DBA, MCAD, MCSD
http://www.extremeexperts.com
Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp
"Martin Barrett" <MartinBarrett@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B3522CB8-C863-402B-8255-2796CFEB4C2A@.microsoft.com...
> This may possibly be the wrong place to ask this question, but never mind.
I
> am in the process of creating a table to hold images, from which crystal
> reports will be used to access the images. I have inserted jpg's into the
new
> table, but they do not show in the report.
> The next logical move was to have a look at the example DB's that ship
with
> SQL, starting with Pubs. The Pub_info has an image field, so I tried
> reporting from that, still no images being displayed in the report.
> Next I tried the Employees table in the Northwind db, the photo field is
an
> images field. These images were displayed with no problems.
> Which leads to my actual question/s, does anyone know what the differences
> are between the images stored in the northwind database and the pubs
> database, are they different file formats (jpeg, gif, etc)?, or are there
any
> other differences?.
> As a matter of interest I imported the images from the northwind db into
my
> new images table and the report read those fine as well.
> Any help or pointers much appreciated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)