我们实现了一个文档成像系统，它将所有图像存储在SQL2005 blob字段中。目前有几百GB，我们看到了出色的响应时间和很少或没有性能下降。此外，fr法规遵从性，我们有一个中间件层，将新发布的文档归档到光学点唱机系统，该系统将它们公开为标准NTFS文件系统。

我们对结果非常满意，特别是在以下方面:

易于复制和备份 能够轻松实现文档版本控制系统

我负责一些管理许多TB图像的应用程序。我们发现在数据库中存储文件路径是最好的。

这里有几个问题:

database storage is usually more expensive than file system storage you can super-accelerate file system access with standard off the shelf products for example, many web servers use the operating system's sendfile() system call to asynchronously send a file directly from the file system to the network interface. Images stored in a database don't benefit from this optimization. things like web servers, etc, need no special coding or processing to access images in the file system databases win out where transactional integrity between the image and metadata are important. it is more complex to manage integrity between db metadata and file system data it is difficult (within the context of a web application) to guarantee data has been flushed to disk on the filesystem

根据我的经验，有时最简单的解决方案是根据主键来命名图像。因此，很容易找到属于特定记录的图像，反之亦然。但与此同时，你并没有在数据库中存储图像的任何信息。

在必须保证引用完整性和ACID遵从性的地方，需要在数据库中存储图像。

你不能保证图像和存储在数据库中的关于该图像的元数据引用同一个文件。换句话说，不可能保证文件系统上的文件只与元数据在同一时间和同一事务中被修改。

如果您没有使用SQL Server 2008，并且有充分的理由将特定的映像文件放在数据库中，那么您可以采用“两者兼备”的方法，将文件系统用作临时缓存，并将数据库用作主存储库。

例如，您的业务逻辑可以在提供映像文件之前检查该映像文件是否存在于磁盘上，并在必要时从数据库检索。这为你购买了多个web服务器的能力和更少的同步问题。

The word on the street is that unless you are a database vendor trying to prove that your database can do it (like, let's say Microsoft boasting about Terraserver storing a bajillion images in SQL Server) it's not a very good idea. When the alternative - storing images on file servers and paths in the database is so much easier, why bother? Blob fields are kind of like the off-road capabilities of SUVs - most people don't use them, those who do usually get in trouble, and then there are those who do, but only for the fun of it.