0

I'm deciding between using blobs in a MYSQL Db or a file system directory to store user uploaded images in a website I'm working on in node JS.

I have heard that blobs can be extremely inefficient, as they slow down query speed. However, if they were stored in a separate "Images" table that is only to be accessed when the images are required, would it be so bad as it would not slow down the queries to access the main data? These images will be static, not modified, and will not be very large in size (measurable in kb).

Alternatively, if storing images in the file system and the path in the database, how would you create an absolute path to the images in your project folder, so that any script no matter if in the api, public, etc folder can access these images without modification to the stored file path?

jw21
  • 25
  • 6
  • Always store the location versus blob/encoded data for images so that it's easier to transport. You can have the client convert it later for them to re-use the data "encoded". – BGPHiJACK Jan 12 '22 at 00:17
  • 1
    This is one of the oldest and most frequently-asked questions on Stack Overflow. Example: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3748/storing-images-in-db-yea-or-nay I suggest searching for `[mysql] store image]` or one that I answered: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1717264/should-i-use-mysql-blob-field-type/1717568#1717568 – Bill Karwin Jan 12 '22 at 00:19
  • If your goal is to display those images on web pages, then put them in files and use the `` tag to access them in HTML. – Rick James Jan 12 '22 at 20:01

0 Answers0