With many databases (instead of one large database) you can move them around as resources before scarce, ie: to other servers or expanded disk. The down side is there will be many to be maintained, but automated scripts should take care of most of that.

 

From: Sabio - PSQL <slopez_pg@ceroriesgo.co.cr> To: PostgreSQL Admin <pgsql-admin@postgresql.org> Subject: Re: [ADMIN] large database versus many databases Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 10:16:45 -0600 Uwe Maiwald wrote: >Hi, > >we are currently planning a very large installation of a >web-application using PostgreSQL. The application can be configured >to handle 1 database per customer, or all customers in one large >database. > >We plan to start with e.g. 500 customers, each of which can have 200 >MB or more in the database. And we want the system to be expandable >as needed (thousands of customers, using lots of memory). > >Has anyone any experience what is best >- using one very large database for all customers or >- using 1 database per customer > >concerning expandability, performance, server configuration, system >updates etc. > >Is it advisable not to install more than a certain amount of >databases on one server? > >Any hints welcome, > >Thanks, Uwe > > >---------------------------(end of >broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org > > I am currently developing a system like this and we are using one database per customer. You only have to consider one thing. If you have only one database for all customer and database have a problem all customer can't work. If you have many databases as customers if a database fails only one customer can't work, and it's easier to solve for one that for all. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly