[PHP] Re: [PHP-DB] OSCON: anybody interested in my Oracle talk?
Hello, I m sure I will not be in OSCON, but if there is a possibily for you to go to International PHP Conf, you will make certainly a very good session there, not lost your job and certainly see me ;)). International PHP Conference 2002 call for papers : http://www.phpconference.de/2002/kt/input/ Calling for sessions : http://php.weblogs.com/ (certainly others sites with the call) hth pa -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: [PHP-DB] blob versus file
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 09:35:37 -0700 "Lazor, Ed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There are benefits to this making the performance hit worthwhile in some > instances. Sure, the exceptions rules :). I am not sure about your answer. The article where you pointed me does not go against what we said, and show the different solutions we have to manage binary datas. I must precise that a path can be an url, this url points to the other server and do whatever you want there (except store images in a db ;))) ). hth pa > More info: > http://www.zend.com/zend/trick/tricks-sept-2001.php > > -Original Message- > Inserting images or whatever binary data in a database does not have much > sense -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: [PHP-DB] blob versus file
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 11:24:31 -0700 "Lazor, Ed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Aren't you saying that storing files on the local file system is generally > faster than using database blobs? In most cases I meet (mysql, pgsql and oracle), the filesystem methods were faster on Linux and Solaris systems. Anywhere I did not say you do not have to store binary datas in DB. Sometimes it is usefull. but : "The primary advantage to keeping files in a MySQL database over keeping them in the local file system may be the ability to separate the database and Web servers onto dedicated hardware. The PHP code above can easily open a connection to database server on another machine." And this primary adv falled down with URI ;). > There are enough examples in the article and related threads to convince me > that benefits to database blobs are more than exceptions to the rule. In > fact, there are even examples where database access is faster. Maybe yes, maybe not, just test it yourself on your prod systems and do your best. pa -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP] Re: [PHP-DB] blob versus file
On Mon, 1 Jul 2002 14:17:53 +0200 "andy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi there, > > I am wondering if anybody has experiance in saving images to blob in mysql. > > I do save images with 1 K and 4 KB to blob fields while I used to save them > to file. It seams to me that this is much slower accessing the files. The > images take a bit (really short but absolutly noticable) to show up on the > site. Is there a way to improve the performance, and why is this happening? > I thought the performance might even boost after storing them to blobs. Not really, the OS filesystem contains features that makes it always faster than a sql query, that will increase your network traffic too. Inserting images or whatever binary data in a database does not have much sense, you could not do a query with this field, cannot be indexed (dunno if exists a DB that implement a image indexer ;) ). Storing relative pathes gave me always more portabilities between DBM. In some case, you have to insert images (or every others binary data) in DB (due to global permissions system only avaible for the DB and not for the filesystem, for example), but as far is possible, I avoid to do it so. IMHO :) pa -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP] Re: [PHP-DB] blob versus file
On Tue, 2 Jul 2002 05:45:40 +0200 "Andy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > is the increase of the network traffic noticable? The query is pretty small > just text. Do u really think this might increase the traffic? Try to heavely charge a DB with images inside it. Do the same without DB, that depends if the dbms is in another server or not, note localhost server can use the network interface and not the socket. then compare the two methods, and use the best :). Tests are always the best way to get the best methods :). > I also noticed that the image is not cached anymore. Is this true for all > blobs, or do I just access them in a wron way? Cached ? Client side ? hth pa -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP] Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: RFE: $HTTP_POST_VARS =& $_POST;
On Thu, 24 Jan 2002 15:45:34 -0800 Mike Eheler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I disagree based simply on two points: > > a) Ideally, the $HTTP_POST/GET and $_POST/$_GET vars should be treated > as "read only". I tell more : MUST be treated as readonly, as for every env/server or whatever you want you dont have a control on it. pa -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To contact the list administrators, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PHP] Re: [PHP-DEV] PHP 5.0.4RC1 and PHP 4.3.11RC1 rolled
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:20:36 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Greg Beaver) wrote: > Edin Kadribasic wrote: > > Windows binaries are now available at: > > > > PHP 5.0.4RC1 > > http://downloads.php.net/edink/php-5.0.4RC1-Win32.zip > > > > PHP 4.3.11RC1 > > http://downloads.php.net/edink/php-4.3.11RC1-Win32.zip > > > > Additional downloads for PHP 5.0.4RC1: > > http://downloads.php.net/edink/pecl-5.0.4RC1-Win32.zip > > http://downloads.php.net/edink/php-debug-pack-5.0.4RC1-Win32.zip > > The PEAR bundles are ridiculously out of date for both PHP 5.0.4 > and 4.3.11, where is the windows build pulling these versions > from? Feel like it was not updated on the building host. PEAR should be 1.3.5, I do not remember the other, but the script should be updated. Regards, --Pierre -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP] Re: [PEAR] Re: Cacheing data form PHP script
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:26:09 +0100 "rush" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Do you see any other way to 'cache' some content? Take a look at pear::cache or pear::cache_lite and pearweb. pearweb use cache_lite to cache whole pages (when possible). To cache part of a page (or whatever). pear::cache is maybe easier to cache function calls (ie the function that generates the menu). But cache_mite is damn fast and can work with function calls too. See the support page on pearweb, there is links to tutorials. > It depends if your menu is unique per user, or it is the same for all > users. If it is unique for each user, than storing it i session makes > sense. If not than you can store it in some file or table in the db. Cache in db? sounds not that good :) > Beeing in one place would make it easier to invalidate the cache since > you would not need to poke around all sessions. That is how cache* work. pierre ps: Rush can you use quotes in reply? -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
