Re: Multi tenancy : schema vs databases
От | John R Pierce |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Multi tenancy : schema vs databases |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 15d1718c-3fad-8c6d-75cc-865fc7913e07@hogranch.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Multi tenancy : schema vs databases (Venkata B Nagothi <nag1010@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
On 9/29/2016 2:25 PM, Venkata B Nagothi wrote: > Since, you are saying there could be thousands of tenants, going for > single-database-per-tenant could possibly end up in a very bad and > complex database design. > worse, it would also require each tenant to have unique connections, making connection pooling a nightmare. depending on the nature of the application, its data isolation requirements, and how much per-tenant customization there is, assuming the customers('tenants') aren't directly accessing SQL, I could see many scenarios with ONE database+schema, and 'tenant' is just a field that qualifies queries. From a pure performance standpoint, this likely woudl be the most efficient, as 1000s of schemas with 100s of tables each == 100s of 1000s of tables, which means massive bloat of the postgres catalog, and also makes caching less effective. -- john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: