Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
ajthepoolman
Constraint Violating Yak Guru
384 Posts |
 Posted - 2003-11-06 : 16:19:00
|
| Hello all. I have a table that has an image field in it. I am storing the binary value of icons in it. Here is my question, is it more efficient to have this column be of type Image instead of varbinary? Also, if you could explain the benefits of one over the other I would be very appreciative. I can tell you that I don't need the lecture about not storing images in my database period, it ain't an option.Thanks all!Aj |
|
|
tkizer
Almighty SQL Goddess
38200 Posts |
Posted - 2003-11-06 : 16:36:50
|
| Image:Variable-length binary data from 0 through 231-1 (2,147,483,647) bytes. Varbinary:Variable-length binary data of n bytes. n must be a value from 1 through 8,000. Storage size is the actual length of the data entered + 4 bytes, not n bytes.So the question is if you are going to have images that are larger than what varbinary supports, which is approximately 8KB if I'm not mistaken.Tara |
 |
|
|
X002548
Not Just a Number
15586 Posts |
Posted - 2003-11-06 : 16:37:50
|
| They look the same...varbinary is just limited to 8k though...not very big for an image...But I guess in this case small would be good...no?Brett8-)EDIT: [snipped] by 1 minute |
|
|
|
ajthepoolman
Constraint Violating Yak Guru
384 Posts |
Posted - 2003-11-06 : 16:47:43
|
| Hopefully it won't be anything over 25K, but you never know.I will stick with image for now.Thanks!Aj |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Image field vs varbinary