# Db vs Filesystem for Binary contnet **URL:** \ **Category:** Rails\ **Created:** [October 2, 2006, 2:05am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/db-vs-filesystem-for-binary-contnet/70692 "2006-10-02T02:05:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![sfwalter](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@sfwalter](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/sfwalter)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2006, 2:05am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/db-vs-filesystem-for-binary-contnet/70692/1 "2006-10-02T02:05:50Z")
Hi, I’m debating between storing binary content (i.e. images) in the db (mysql) or the filesystem. I like the idea of the database because everything is in one place, but I’ve heard using the filesystem has better performance. Is storing binary content in the database a performance hit vs. the file system, or is it just an old wives tale? If I’m going to be writing queries against a table’s non- binary fields will I face performance hits because binary columns appear in the table? Anyone have any thoughts? Thanks in advance. Scott. ---
**Author:** ![sfwalter](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@sfwalter](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/sfwalter)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2006, 2:44am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/db-vs-filesystem-for-binary-contnet/70692/2 "2006-10-02T02:44:26Z")
Scott W. wrote: > Hi, > > I’m debating between storing binary content (i.e. images) in the db > (mysql) or the filesystem. I like the idea of the database because > everything is in one place, but I’ve heard using the filesystem has > better performance. Is storing binary content in the database a > performance hit vs. the file system, or is it just an old wives > tale? If I’m going to be writing queries against a table’s non- > binary fields will I face performance hits because binary columns > appear in the table? Almost any curcumstance you will find the filesystem quicker for accessing binary files than a DB. Depending on how big your files are you can easily end up choking your DB. I think this was a fad started by over ambitious DBAs that wanted every piece of content under their control. ---
**Author:** ![sfwalter](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@sfwalter](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/sfwalter)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2006, 4:25am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/db-vs-filesystem-for-binary-contnet/70692/3 "2006-10-02T04:25:55Z")
I hate managing backups of databases with lots of binary content. Resurrecting a damaged one is next to impossible. OTOH, everything really is in one place, which makes insert and delete more atomic. From a performance perspective, it will depend on how hard you expect your database to be hit. If the database is local, you shouldn¹t suffer much performance. If the database is remote, the round-trip cost adds up in a hurry. If performance is your concern, measure a sample under your projected load on hardware similar to what you plan to deploy to. Steve ---
**Author:** ![sfwalter](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@sfwalter](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/sfwalter)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2006, 4:33am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/db-vs-filesystem-for-binary-contnet/70692/4 "2006-10-02T04:33:03Z")
Yeah, dealing with dumps with a lot of binary data will lose its appeal very quickly. Also, doing file operations – like imagemagick – on binary data just makes things so much more complicated. Besides the weak “keeping everything in one place” argument, I can’t think of any pros of storing binary files in the db. Joe ---
**Author:** ![sfwalter](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@sfwalter](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/sfwalter)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2006, 12:28pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/db-vs-filesystem-for-binary-contnet/70692/5 "2006-10-02T12:28:23Z")
unknown wrote: > > Besides the weak “keeping everything in one place” argument, I can’t > > think of any pros of storing binary files in the db. > > Well, an extension of that argument is that if your images are to be > dynamically resized on a regular basis or anything like that (so image > requests will have to be dynamic whether on the db or not), it makes > it so much easier to program. HUH?!? Easier how? Dealing with image _files_ is stupid easy. Joe But I still think having images on the > file system is well worth the extra time and effort in almost any > circumstance. > > This is one of those subjects that comes up every 2-4 weeks. > > -Nathan ---
**Author:** ![sfwalter](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@sfwalter](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/sfwalter)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2006, 9:26am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/db-vs-filesystem-for-binary-contnet/70692/6 "2006-10-02T09:26:21Z")
> Besides the weak “keeping everything in one place” argument, I can’t > think of any pros of storing binary files in the db. Well, an extension of that argument is that if your images are to be dynamically resized on a regular basis or anything like that (so image requests will have to be dynamic whether on the db or not), it makes it so much easier to program. But I still think having images on the file system is well worth the extra time and effort in almost any circumstance. This is one of those subjects that comes up every 2-4 weeks. -Nathan ---
**Author:** ![sfwalter](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@sfwalter](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/sfwalter)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2006, 4:19pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/db-vs-filesystem-for-binary-contnet/70692/7 "2006-10-02T16:19:11Z")
I’ve done projects where I’ve stored images both ways. The first time, I stored images in the database. That’s an alright approach, because you can use caching to speed things up. However, in a more recent project, I’m storing images in the file system along with any resized renditions of them. The thinking behind this is that I can serve image files statically without hitting Rails at all. More, since I’m using a very limited set of sizes, after a while, all the renditions I need will already be created statically. The tradeoff here is CPU time versus storage space. I think I’ll ALWAYS have more storage than CPU.