2 Replies Latest reply on Jan 26, 2017 11:19 AM by IT_User

    Leverage different databases for text vs images?


      Is there a best practice in splitting database files between images and text data?


      My thought was that 1 database would have tables with records and other text data. The other database would be records with an index of MD5 hashes and the associated images.


      So if a catalog has lots of images, front/back/isometric views of items, there would be no need to update the image catalog if the prices & descriptions of the items are the only thing that change.


      Does this make sense? We noticed that images rarely get deleted from our dataset, but, everything else ("meta") is frequently updated.


      The goal is to reduce the number of updates for stand alone ("Kiosk") type apps.

        • 1. Re: Leverage different databases for text vs images?

          It's a trade off and the fact that this is a standalone Kiosk solution is an important detail.


          A modular design--different files for the two types of data makes for easier updates and more complex management of security as you have to set up security in every such file.

          • 2. Re: Leverage different databases for text vs images?

            Usually the reason we separate out images (or even any other file attachments) is that it can take up a lot of space in a FileMaker file, which is harder to backup or move the file.

            If the file(s) is local (and not on the server) then it may be good to split for updates, because it doesn't have the extra file size to transfer.

            If it is hosted on the server, then either could work, but one file may be actually easier to keep updates.