1 Reply Latest reply on Jul 13, 2009 3:06 PM by TSGal

    reference vs actual file



      reference vs actual file


      Which is the best to use in a case where each record will have a 1 MB PDF somehow attached to it?  Elsewhere on the forums someone wrote that storing the actual file slows down FM in general -- is this true?  Will a few gigabytes of container field do this?  Other than fear of broken links, is there any reason to store the actual file in a container field?  What are the benefits of each?  Did anyone else notice a lag when opening small files that are actually in the container field, or does that only happen with larger files?


      As of now, FM is on one server, and all the files are on another server, in a single folder, named after a certain FM field.  I'm using FM 10.


      - Yodie

        • 1. Re: reference vs actual file



          Thank you for your post.


          There are several factors to consider.  If you have a lot of non-container fields, then FileMaker needs to access them quickly.  When you have a lot of container field entries, FileMaker needs to skip around the file to get the information.  In concept, and depending on file size, the less container information in the file, the quicker FileMaker will present the data.  Keeping the container field information stored as a reference MAY help speed on large files.


          On the other hand, if most of your data contains images, the loading of images is handled immediately by FileMaker rather than reading the path, finding the file and displaying it.  A lot is also dependent on the size of the container files.  If they are large, you may not notice much time difference.


          In other words, you'll have to do some testing to see which works best for you.


          Let me know if you need clarification for any of the above concepts.



          FileMaker, Inc.