Embedded image vs. Calculation?

[Nagasaki]

I heard that using embedded images will bog down a database and slow it up. Right now I only have about 500 records in my organization's db, but its going to grow, so definitely I am concerned about this.

Some people in my industry use a type of database software where you can store the image in a spreadsheet and have the program grab that image. Is something similiar possibly in filemaker and will that save my database from a sluggish fate?

[Nagasaki]

Also, I forgot to add, if I already have 500 records with embedded images, is it going to be a huge pain to change that to a calculation that fetches it from another folder?

[mr_vodka]

If you are talking about container fields storing the images or simply referencing them, then yes eventually the size of the file will slow down your solution. If your solution is on a Peer to peer or preferablly server then every client could have a shared universal directory or path. The files would be located at this location for everyone. Then your container field would reference the path of the image instead of storing it. (checkbox "store reference only").

As for taking what is currently in your system and then converting them to reference them, you could write a script that would export them to the location path and then import/insert the image into the container field again but this time as reference only.

[Nagasaki]

I thought so, thank you very much for clarifying that for me.

[Genx]

... OR, create an additional FileMaker file specifically for the storage of images and reference that from your main file.

[IdealData]

Nice try Genx, but wouldn't the images still be embedded in A FMP file? Then that file would hit performance problems.

[Lee Smith]

Hi Mr V and Mr ID,

I've seen what you have pointed out before, but I've never seen this expressed by FileMaker. The only caution I see in FileMaker's Help is that [color:blue]Because image files can be large, consider importing only a reference to each image file, which I've always took to mean that you need to worry about the size of your FileMaker file and it's size limitations, not that it meant a slower performance of your files. And, now with the increase in FileMaker file size limits, this concern would seem to be minimized.

My personal experience is limited to one small solution of about 4000 images, that 2 other files use via relationship. I have not experienced a performance hit that I can tell. I have been using this same file for many years, and have converted it twice (4, and 5). However, I have hesitated moving it up to v8.5, until I can decide if this wouldn't be a good time to export the images, or not.

So, If any body can provide a link to additional information on this topic (i.e. performance test, white papers, etc.), it would be appreciated.

TIA

Lee

[Genx]

Nice try Genx, but wouldn't the images still be embedded in A FMP file? Then that file would hit performance problems

It seems everyone just assumes performance problems... But i would definitley never mix the images and data, and i'd hesitate to use the FM file not because of Performance issues but rather for fear of corruption of the images themselves.

[Steverino]

Is there a way perhaps to store files and pictures on the web (upload and download), rather than in the file itself? Can you do that with the web viewer? Does anybody have a sample solution?

I'm really looking for a solution to store a variety of files -- and my users might not have a network drive accessible.