From: Thees Peereboom 

Geo,

In general I dislike storing pointers to files in the filesystem. Not
because it won't work, but in general because there will always be somebody
or something that moves the actual files to another location, change the
securitysettings on this specific directory (so that the database-user no
longer have access) or whatever. The result is that the stored pointers
become useless.

- Thees Peereboom

On Wed, 25 Dec 2002 19:42:05 -0500, "Geo."  wrote:

>Is there some advantage to storing the sound or image files in the database
>as opposed to just storing the location of the files in the database?
>
>Geo.
>
>"Ellen K."  wrote in message
>news:el0k0vgrdm5ifqi42c7i7tl53hl10c9qek{at}4ax.com...
>> The actual recording.   You store it in a field whose datatype is image,
>> which is misleading because that datatype is for any BLOB, not just
>> pictures.   (The ADO equivalent datatype is adVarBinary.)   The way SQL
>> Server handles it internally is that it keeps the BLOBs on their own set
>> of pages, so on the page where the rest of the row is, that field holds
>> a pointer to the page where the BLOB that belongs to it lives.   This is
>> completely transparent to the user.   There is an option to make it live
>> on the same page but I think there's a size limit.   (There's also
>> another binary datatype that _always_ lives on the same page with the
>> rest of the row, but that has a limit of 8K.)   As .wav files our
>> average recording is about 4MB, but we just got something called Soft
>> Call Recorder which has its own proprietary compressed format, and the
>> files it makes are about ¬ the size of the .wav ones.
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4