From: | Rory Campbell-Lange <rory(at)campbell-lange(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Avinash Kumar <avinash(dot)vallarapu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>, samhitha g <samhithagarudadri(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: pg_attribute, pg_class, pg_depend grow huge in count and size with multiple tenants. |
Date: | 2020-05-07 21:08:46 |
Message-ID: | 20200507210846.GA17040@campbell-lange.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On 07/05/20, Avinash Kumar (avinash(dot)vallarapu(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> >> Our application serves multiple tenants. Each tenant has the schema
> >> with a few hundreds of tables and few functions.
> >> We have 2000 clients so we have to create 2000 schemas in a single
> >> database.
> > That is one option but I wouldn't say you must. If you cannot get
> > individual tables to be multi-tenant you are probably better off having one
> > database per client on a shared cluster - at least given the size of the
> > schema and number of clients.
> >
> I am working on a similar problem.
> 1 database per each client may be a killer when you have a connection
> pooler that creates a pool for a unique combination of (user,database).
One of our clusters has well over 500 databases fronted by pg_bouncer.
We get excellent connection "flattening" using pg_bouncer with
per-database connection spikes dealt with through a reserve pool.
The nice thing about separate databases is that it is easy to scale
horizontally.
Rory
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Avinash Kumar | 2020-05-07 21:17:32 | Re: pg_attribute, pg_class, pg_depend grow huge in count and size with multiple tenants. |
Previous Message | Avinash Kumar | 2020-05-07 20:28:21 | Re: pg_attribute, pg_class, pg_depend grow huge in count and size with multiple tenants. |