File based system vs database system

Ethical Hacking. Computer Graphics. Software Engineering. Web Technology. Cyber Security. C Programming. Control System. Data Mining. Data Warehouse. Javatpoint Services JavaTpoint offers too many high quality services. File System File System Approach File based systems were an early attempt to computerize the manual system. In the above figure: Consider an example of a student's file system. DBMS: A database approach is a well-organized collection of data that are related in a meaningful way which can be accessed by different users but stored only once in a system.

In the above figure, In the above figure, duplication of data is reduced due to centralization of data. The file system is a collection of data. In this system, the user has to write the procedures for managing the database. Data is distributed in many files, and it may be of different formats, so it isn't easy to share data. The file system doesn't have a crash mechanism, i.

In the File system, concurrent access has many problems like redirecting the file while deleting some information or updating some information. Due to the centralization of the database, the problems of data redundancy and inconsistency are controlled. If you are storing millions of records then this can be a serious problem.

A file processing system is a collection of programs that store and manage files in computer hard-disk. On the other hand, A database management system is collection of programs that enables to create and maintain a database. Yes, storing data is just storing data. At the end of the day, you have files. There is a well-known versioning solution svn that finally ended up using a filesystem-based model to store data, ditching their BerkeleyDB.

Rare but happens. More info. In a database, you have options you don't have with files. Now try to:. There are lots of other good points but these are the first mountains you're trying to climb when you think of a file based db alternative.

Those guys programmed all this for you, it's yours to use; think of the likely most frequent scenarios, enumerate all possible actions you want to perform on your data, and decide which one works better for you.

Think in benefits, not fashion. Again, if you're storing JPG pictures and only ever look for them by one key their id maybe? Filesystems, btw, are close to databases today, as many of them use a balanced tree approach, so on a BTRFS you can just put all your pictures in one folder - and the OS will silently implement something like an early SQL query each time you access your files.

Programming rarely says "never" or "always". Those who say "database always wins" or "files always win" probably just don't know enough. That's it. Context: I've written a filesystem that has been running in production for 7 years now. The key difference between a filesystem and a database is that the filesystem API is part of the OS, thus filesystem implementations have to implement that API and thus follow certain rules, whereas databases are built by 3rd parties having complete freedom.

Historically, databases where created when the filesystem provided by the OS were not good enough for the problem at hand. Just think about it: if you had special requirements, you couldn't just call Microsoft or Apple to redesign their filesystem API. You would either go ahead and write your own storage software or you would look around for existing alternatives. So the need created a market for 3rd party data storage software which ended up being called databases.

That's about it. While it may seem that filesystems have certain rules like having files and directories, this is not true. The biggest operating systems work like that but there are many mall small OSs that work differently.

It's certainly not a hard requirement. Just remember, to build a new filesystem, you also need to write a new OS, which will make adoption quite a bit harder. Why not focus on just the storage engine and call it a database instead? In the end, both databases and filesystems come in all shapes and sizes. Transactional, relational, hierarchical, graph, tabled; whatever you can think of.

Join For Free. Pros of the File System Performance can be better than when you do it in a database. In a files ystem, accessing a file is quite simple and light weight. Saving the files and downloading them in the file system is much simpler than it is in a database since a simple "Save As" function will help you out.

Downloading can be done by addressing a URL with the location of the saved file. Migrating the data is an easy process. You can just copy and paste the folder to your desired destination while ensuring that write permissions are provided to your destination. It's cost effective in most cases to expand your web server rather than pay for certain databases. It's easy to migrate it to cloud storage i.

Amazon S3, CDNs, etc. Cons of the File System Loosely packed. Consider a scenario in which your files are deleted from the location manually or by some hacking dudes. You might not know whether the file exists or not. Painful, right? Low security. Since your files can be saved in a folder where you should have provided write permissions, it is prone to safety issues and invites trouble, like hacking.

It's best to avoid saving in the file system if you cannot afford to compromise in terms of security. Use Cases If your application is responsible for handling large files i.

If your application will have a large number of users. Miscellaneous Though the file system comes with some costs and certain cons, a good internal folder structure and choosing a folder location that may be a little difficult to access by others can help.