SQL Server Performance Forum – Threads Archive
Insert Performance
Hi, I have a table on which I store two images, each of them have about30KB. The insert is taking 50ms on average, sometimes it takes 100ms
or even more. There are timmings that for me are not accepatable. This table will grow to 1.2GB per day, it will be very large
and I will need to perform other queries on this table. My question is, should I move the images to the file System and
store the locations ? Or is there any other actions that I should
perform in order to increase the performance ?
Thanks for any help.
Regards Luis p.s I’m using sql server 2005
the standard response is that it’s better to store images and other binary files on the file system, and just store the paths in sql. The boss of sqlteam agrees: [<img src=’/community/emoticons/emotion-1.gif’ alt=’
‘ />]<br /><br /<a target="_blank" href=http://www.sqlteam.com/item.asp?ItemID=986>http://www.sqlteam.com/item.asp?ItemID=986</a><br /><br />but if you google this topic you’ll find others that feel just as strongly the other way. benefits are things like backups, ACID properties, etc come for free if you store them in sql. <br /><br />I feel like files belong on the file system, not sql server. The failure of the winfs project seems to agree with this viewpoint. (just kidding – that failed due to bad management of a huge software project I would say [}<img src=’/community/emoticons/emotion-1.gif’ alt=’‘ />] windows org + new file system developed by a separate org = vista will never ship…)<br /><br /><hr noshade size="1">SqlSpec – a fast, cheap, and comprehensive data dictionary generator <br />for SQL Server 2000 and 2005 and Analysis Server 2005 – www.elsasoft.org <br />
http://www.aspfaq.com/show.asp?id=2149 Madhivanan Failing to plan is Planning to fail
]]>