Storing a file in a database as opposed to the file system?

sql-server database filesystems storage
Cade picture Cade · Aug 12, 2008 · Viewed 127.4k times · Source

Generally, how bad of a performance hit is storing a file in a database (specifically mssql) as opposed to the file system? I can't come up with a reason outside of application portability that I would want to store my files as varbinaries in SQL Server.

Answer

Michael Stum picture Michael Stum · Aug 12, 2008

Have a look at this answer:

Storing Images in DB - Yea or Nay?

Essentially, the space and performance hit can be quite big, depending on the number of users. Also, keep in mind that Web servers are cheap and you can easily add more to balance the load, whereas the database is the most expensive and hardest to scale part of a web architecture usually.

There are some opposite examples (e.g., Microsoft Sharepoint), but usually, storing files in the database is not a good idea.

Unless possibly you write desktop apps and/or know roughly how many users you will ever have, but on something as random and unexpectable like a public web site, you may pay a high price for storing files in the database.

Related questions

Reset identity seed after deleting records in SQL Server

I have inserted records into a SQL Server database table. The table had a primary key defined and the auto increment identity seed is set to “Yes”. This is done primarily because in SQL Azure, each table has to have …

Read More
How do I list all the columns in a table?

For the various popular database systems, how do you list all the columns in a table?

Read More
How to replace a string in a SQL Server Table Column

I have a table (SQL Sever) which references paths (UNC or otherwise), but now the path is going to change. In the path column, I have many records and I need to change just a portion of the path, but …

Read More