By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
454,967 Members | 1,178 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 454,967 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Efficient way to store photos

P: n/a
Firstly, apologies as this is not strictly an Access problem.

I have a Access 2003 database containing records about people, and each
person has 2 photos associated with the record. The photos are stored
in a 'photos' folder. When a record is displayed, so are the photos. It
all works fast and well.

But I'm now getting close to 50,000 records and although it still works
well I'm worried about having 100,000 jpgs in one folder.

So my question is, should I be worried about this? If so, should I
split them up somehow?

Any input gratefully received

Thanks
Dave

Feb 28 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
4 Replies


P: n/a
On 28 Feb 2006 04:07:09 -0800, "Dave G @ K2" <da**@k2computers.co.uk>
wrote:

I'm surprised to hear that it is fast. How fast?
Typically it takes Windows a while to enumerate files in a folder.
That's why we typically would store them in a folder tree. The tree
structure would depend on the expected number of records. For example
you could have one folder for each 1000 PersonID values. The folder
names would be "0" through "999", and the path would be:
BASE_PATH & PersonID/1000

-Tom.

Firstly, apologies as this is not strictly an Access problem.

I have a Access 2003 database containing records about people, and each
person has 2 photos associated with the record. The photos are stored
in a 'photos' folder. When a record is displayed, so are the photos. It
all works fast and well.

But I'm now getting close to 50,000 records and although it still works
well I'm worried about having 100,000 jpgs in one folder.

So my question is, should I be worried about this? If so, should I
split them up somehow?

Any input gratefully received

Thanks
Dave


Feb 28 '06 #2

P: n/a
Tom van Stiphout wrote:
On 28 Feb 2006 04:07:09 -0800, "Dave G @ K2" <da**@k2computers.co.uk>
wrote:

I'm surprised to hear that it is fast. How fast?
Typically it takes Windows a while to enumerate files in a folder.
That's why we typically would store them in a folder tree. The tree
structure would depend on the expected number of records. For example
you could have one folder for each 1000 PersonID values. The folder
names would be "0" through "999", and the path would be:
BASE_PATH & PersonID/1000

-Tom.


For a while, at a client's place, all of the documents were stored in
one huge folder. I modified it to be in a tree...mine is broken out by
year...or perhaps the document type and year. The reason I did that was
at times we needed to go into Explorer and look for a file. Loading the
large folder in Explorer was excruciating regarding time. However, if I
had the filename, it'd open sharply and snappily even in the large
folder. It just might take some time if you don't know what the
filename is.
Feb 28 '06 #3

P: n/a
Tom, you ask how fast and the answer is pretty well instant, no real
delay. Access knows the filename and can get the file very quickly. But
then as salad says, if you try to look at the files in Explorer then it
takes forever.

But I never look at them using Explorer, and everything is working fine
as it is. My question was whether I should be worried about this, or
shall I just carry on adding more records. After all, I don't want to
change this if I don't have to because there would be a lot to change.

Dave

Feb 28 '06 #4

P: n/a
Well if 50k photos work than 100k shouldn't break the bank. Frankly, I wish
I had known that 50k would work, because I wrote a lot of extra code to
store my photos in separate folders and retrieve them by ID number, and I
probably have only about 20k.

--
Darryl Kerkeslager
Mar 1 '06 #5

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.