From: | CoL <col(at)mportal(dot)hu> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Databases Vs. Schemas |
Date: | 2004-03-23 11:06:42 |
Message-ID: | c3p5o0$238c$1@news.hub.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-performance |
hi
Josh Berkus wrote:
> Stalin,
>
>
>>We are evaluating the options for having multiple databases vs. schemas on a
>>single database cluster for a custom grown app that we developed. Each app
>>installs same set of tables for each service. And the service could easily
>>be in thousands. so Is it better to have 1000 databases vs 1000 schemas in a
>>database cluster. What are the performance overhead of having multiple
>>databases vs. schemas (if any). I'm leaning towards having schemas rather
>>than databases but i would like to get others opinion on this. Appreciate
>>your reply.
>
>
> No performance difference AFAIK. The real question is whether you have to
> have queries joining several "databases". If yes, use Schema; if no, use
> databases.
don't forget the pg_hba.conf :) You need 1000 declaration. Was a thread
before, title: performance problem - 10.000 databases
Check this:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=1068039213.28814.116.camel%40franki-laptop.tpi.pl&rnum=10&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D1000%2Bdatabase%2Bgroup:comp.databases.postgresql.*%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Dcomp.databases.postgresql.*%26selm%3D1068039213.28814.116.camel%2540franki-laptop.tpi.pl%26rnum%3D10
C.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ricardo Vaz Mannrich | 2004-03-23 11:32:30 | Re: Slow Foreign Key |
Previous Message | Raul Secan | 2004-03-23 10:55:39 | upgrading to 7.4.2 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Adam Ruth | 2004-03-23 13:54:02 | Re: Databases Vs. Schemas |
Previous Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2004-03-23 05:39:38 | Re: [PERFORM] Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux |