AnsweredAssumed Answered

Container Fields and Database Size

Question asked by NicholasPeterson on Nov 7, 2014
Latest reply on Nov 7, 2014 by philmodjunk

Title

Container Fields and Database Size

Post

Hello, 

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.

Outcomes