DIGIT-ARC read-only archive · snapshot: July 23, 2026

MSSQL Server Image Datatype Performance

7 posts · originally from https://geek.digit.in/community/threads/mssql-server-image-datatype-performance.158516/

RBX
RBX Original post #1
Jun 14, 2012 at 7:57 AM
I need to store images using a .net application, and I'm using MS SQL Server with it. SQL server provides a datatype named 'Image', supposedly specialized for image storage.

I reckon that storing images in database would severely degrade the performance, and it would be better to store just the path to the image, but the project guide insists that we use DB to store images.
So, is Image datatype just like regular blobs or it really would be better to store the image in DB using the Image datatype ?
Prime_Coder
Jun 14, 2012 at 8:24 AM
IMO, it would be better to store the image in DB using the Image data type for MS SQL Server.
Zangetsu
Jun 14, 2012 at 11:25 AM
u can also use Varbinary to store images in database.
RBX
RBX #4
Jun 14, 2012 at 7:15 PM
Apart from security (which is not required) would it not just add time required to convert between database image format and a format suitable for viewing ? Moreover, if I were to perform joins on the table, wouldn't the resulting tables just be huge ?
Zangetsu
Jun 15, 2012 at 11:04 AM
^u can't do join on image datatype
coolpcguy
Jun 15, 2012 at 3:43 PM
*dba.stackexchange.com/a/2446/120
nbaztec
nbaztec #7
Jun 15, 2012 at 5:29 PM
1. If security of the data isn't required and the images are not updated, storing just the paths is a better option.
If any of the above two criteria is required, then storing binary data in the db is the better option.

2. Would it degrade performance? Not as much you'd think.

3. DBMS does not care about the image format of the image, the MIME type has to be accounted for separately. It's just binary data for the DBMS.