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
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 |