Re: One huge db vs many small dbs

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: "Nicholson, Brad (Toronto, ON, CA)" <bnicholson(at)hp(dot)com>, Max <maxabbr(at)yahoo(dot)com(dot)br>, "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: One huge db vs many small dbs
Date: 2013-12-05 21:53:51
Message-ID: 52A0F5EF.9030305@commandprompt.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

>> One of the many questions we have is about performance of the db if we
>> work with only one (using a ClientID to separete de clients info) or thousands
>> of separate dbs. The management of the dbs is not a huge concert as we
>> have an automated tool.
>
> If you are planning on using persisted connections, the large number of DB approach is going to have a significant disadvantage. You cannot pool connections between databases. So if you have 2000 databases, you are going to need a minimum of 2000 connections to service those database (assuming you want to keep at least one active connection open per client at a time).

That isn't exactly true. You could run multiple poolers.

JD

>
> Brad.
>
>
>

--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/ 509-416-6579
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
High Availability, Oracle Conversion, Postgres-XC, @cmdpromptinc
For my dreams of your image that blossoms
a rose in the deeps of my heart. - W.B. Yeats

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Kirkwood 2013-12-05 22:01:00 Re: WAL + SSD = slow inserts?
Previous Message Nicholson, Brad (Toronto, ON, CA) 2013-12-05 21:37:38 Re: One huge db vs many small dbs