Re: Multi tenancy : schema vs databases

From: John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Multi tenancy : schema vs databases
Date: 2016-09-30 01:25:02
Message-ID: 15d1718c-3fad-8c6d-75cc-865fc7913e07@hogranch.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 9/29/2016 2:25 PM, Venkata B Nagothi wrote:
> Since, you are saying there could be thousands of tenants, going for
> single-database-per-tenant could possibly end up in a very bad and
> complex database design.
>

worse, it would also require each tenant to have unique connections,
making connection pooling a nightmare.

depending on the nature of the application, its data isolation
requirements, and how much per-tenant customization there is, assuming
the customers('tenants') aren't directly accessing SQL, I could see many
scenarios with ONE database+schema, and 'tenant' is just a field that
qualifies queries. From a pure performance standpoint, this likely
woudl be the most efficient, as 1000s of schemas with 100s of tables
each == 100s of 1000s of tables, which means massive bloat of the
postgres catalog, and also makes caching less effective.

--
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2016-09-30 02:07:57 Re: Parallel query only when EXPLAIN ANALYZEd
Previous Message Adrian Klaver 2016-09-30 00:16:41 Re: isnull() function in pgAdmin3