What's faster, SQL Server or a file?

[Bruce W.1]

I've got a ton of product images. Originally I figured I'd just make
them blobs in SQL Server, in a row with the product description, etc..

But now I'm wondering if a simple image file (jpeg or whatever) on the
hard drive would be faster to load. Or does one have priority over the
other?

Thanks for your help.

[johndoe]

Using a Database for images is alot slower then if you just stored them on file.

[Eric Lawrence [MSFT]]

Files on disk are faster when served from IIS6 because the images can be
cached and delivered directly via Windows Kernel networking functions.

That said, the speed difference on your server is probably pretty
insignificant unless this is a high traffic site.

The most important suggestion is that you set the HTTP caching headers
(either via IIS, or in your SQL-based page) so that the user needn't
redownload images they already have.

--
Thanks,

Eric Lawrence
Program Manager
Assistance and Worldwide Services

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

"Bruce W.1" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:O3**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

I've got a ton of product images. Originally I figured I'd just make
them blobs in SQL Server, in a row with the product description, etc..

But now I'm wondering if a simple image file (jpeg or whatever) on the
hard drive would be faster to load. Or does one have priority over the
other?

Thanks for your help.