Re: Multi tenancy : schema vs databases

From: Vick Khera <vivek(at)khera(dot)org>
To: pgsql-general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Multi tenancy : schema vs databases
Date: 2016-09-30 14:33:25
Message-ID: CALd+dcei0CseoUpX-jZLvCeKnYOiKkXyOG-E-85j_0NF4-1caQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 5:11 AM, John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> wrote:
> On 9/30/2016 2:06 AM, Rakesh Kumar wrote:
>>
>> We require complete data isolation. Absolutely nothing should be shared
>> between two tenants.
>>
>> WHy would multiple dbs be any worse than multiple schemas in performance?
>
>
> complete? use 1000s of seperate VM instances, one per tennant.
>

Well, VM's don't always provide 100% isolation, so separate hardware,
with each on its own VLAN seems right to me. And then make sure your
switch doesn't leak across VLANs.

Your requirements need refinement, at the least :)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Vick Khera 2016-09-30 14:36:56 Re: Multi tenancy : schema vs databases
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-09-30 14:25:41 Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade from 9.5 to 9.6 fails with "invalid argument"