I have wrote an app to store docs to a database using the image data type. I've read that this data type uses 2mb of space regardless of the size of the object you are storing in the field. <br>
<br>
Is this true, how do you get around this?<br>
<br>
Thanks
Try storing the image data in a file, and using just a varchar pointer to that file. Then have your application use that pointer to access the image....
Microsoft has a site that does what you want. This is a site that has loads of images that are kept on disk and refered to rather then kept in SQL Server.
Where did you read about the 2mb per store for a Text field in SQL server?<br>
<br>
I haven't noticed this, that is why I am asking. I have a database with roughly 20000 text documents stored in it and it is only 34 MB total.
The text and image fields are stored on their own data pages, which are 2KB long. What the deal is, is that text and image data will take up a multiple of 2KB in size regardless of how long the actual data is.<br>
<br>
For example, the text field will be 2KB long until the data is one byte over, then it will take up 4KB, etc.
Ok, multiples of 2KB is much different the 2MB!!! That was what struck me as odd. That makes more since, but it still can cause a problem for some, thanks..;.
'text' and 'image' fields were added in SQL Server 6.5 but in my experience are best avoided. They are supposed to be used as a straight dump for documents and images, however programmers are tempted to used them when they may have char fields over 255 - this is bad news because they can be difficult to access within programs.<br>
SQL 7.0 works better because outside data sources can be included as tables in a query, including a reference to a picture... I see a database that generates websites coming on..<br>
By the way, you'd be surprised how quickly those 2K's add up.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.