Thank you for the comments.
It is not my choice to store in the database.
This is an existing project initially it was stored in the server and now we are in the process of changing the backend from mysql to Oracle and thought of storing it in the database
Small part of the image is displayed in ie but in chrome and Firefox no issues at all. It display it correctly.
But i will highlight the contents while i was doing the research
The encoding is indicated by ;base64. If it's present the data is encoded as base64. Without it the data (as a sequence of octets) is represented using ASCII encoding for octets inside the range of safe URL characters and using the standard %xx hex encoding of URLs for octets outside that range. If <MIME-type> is omitted, it defaults to text/plain;charset=US-ASCII. (As a shorthand, the type can be omitted but the charset parameter supplied.)
Some browsers (Chrome, Opera, Safari, Firefox) accept a non-standard ordering if both ;base64 and ;charset are supplied, while Internet Explorer requires that the charset's specification must precede the base64 token.
Any help will be really appreciated!
Originally Posted by requinix
[edited] Putting the images in a database can make some things easier than if they were stored as files (mostly because it comes for free): replicating across multiple instances, backing up with the rest of the database, and sharing across load-balanced web servers. You can still do that with a file-based approach but it means extra work. [/edited]
Does IE even download the entire image? That's the most obvious thing to check.