Container Fields and Database Size
I have a question about the way FileMaker handles embedded container data. I don't use this feature much as I have always known that it increases the database size, however in this instance I am simply using a FileMaker program to parse a bunch of images and export them to PDF. This isn't a live database hosted or anything, I am just using it to convert images to PDF.
Here's the setup, I have a dump of thousands of tiff images, and I wrote a script to import them all in as records into a Documents table. Then display the images on a layout, sort them, and then export them as a PDF file. Everything is working, however I have run into something that is really odd which I don't understand:
The folder of Images I have is 6.7 GB. There are 136,860 tiff image files ranging from 10kB - 80kB each (they are all black and white scanned documents). However, when I imported all these images into the FileMaker file I found that the database size increased from ~400mb to over 48GB! How can the database file be literally 7 times larger than the total size of the data I imported?
I realize there is probably some overhead in the database file for indexing etc, but the size difference makes no sense to me. I can see why developers say never to embed data into container fields.
Thanks for any insight.
I don't know why but this has long been the case. I see no reason to embed the files from what you describe in your post, however. Seems like you can get the job done with "store a reference" type inserts/imports of the image files into your database.