Re: One huge db vs many small dbs
От | Joshua D. Drake |
---|---|
Тема | Re: One huge db vs many small dbs |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 52A0F5EF.9030305@commandprompt.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: One huge db vs many small dbs ("Nicholson, Brad (Toronto, ON, CA)" <bnicholson@hp.com>) |
Список | 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 minimumof 2000 connections to service those database (assuming you want to keep at least one active connection open per clientat 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
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: