This project is read-only.

Storage provider - XML or DB

Aug 20, 2009 at 11:18 PM

Hi all.

I'm configuring an instance of BE for my small site blog (the site is written in asp).

I'm going to use the asp role and membership provider that the site already uses (so they will 'apply' to the blog section too), but I was wondering whether to use the xml file provider for storage or a DB provider.

My concerns :

  1. Any provider has size limitations, file size , table size (most of my data is text , part images) ?
  2. How final is my install decision - in other words, how difficult will it be to change the provider in the future ?
  3. Performance ?
  4. Anything I'm missing ?

I have the 'DB quota' with the host account.

I'd appreciate any experience regarding the two options.



Aug 21, 2009 at 10:35 PM

In my experience:

#1, BE is not a good choice if you plan to have more than a few thousand posts, at least with the DB option

DB option is much more manageable than XML files, but also slower, especially when you have a lot of posts.... XML option is probably faster, but I don't know.  Table size in DB there is no limit, but the blog stops functioning after ~20k posts (IME)

Install decision is not that final if you can get the blog importer to work (a lot of people can't).  You can just create a second blog setup with DB option, and use blog import api to import posts from your XML install to your DB install or vice versa

Performance is not always great, with either option, but I've had more performance issues with DB option

DB quotas suck... get a new host :)  I recommed webhost4life... but unless you have a lot of posts I doubt you will ever hit the quota, BE tables are lightweight

Peace and good luck

Aug 21, 2009 at 11:21 PM

Thanks Woahjones .

I'll start with the XML option.