Received: from localhost (maia-4.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17D959FBAF3 for ; Tue, 29 May 2007 19:07:43 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 11770-04 for ; Tue, 29 May 2007 19:07:40 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5 Received: from serv01.siteground137.com (ns1.siteground137.com [67.15.250.10]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8082B9FBA5D for ; Tue, 29 May 2007 19:07:40 -0300 (ADT) Received: from nat.vinton.com ([209.162.219.253]:59632 helo=dogma.v10.wvs) by serv01.siteground137.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.52) id 1Ht9qk-0003tr-N1; Tue, 29 May 2007 17:07:30 -0500 Subject: Re: How PostgreSQL handles multiple DDBB instances? From: Jeff Davis To: arnaulist@andromeiberica.com Cc: Tom Lane , PostgreSQL Performance In-Reply-To: <465727E8.8090806@andromeiberica.com> References: <4656A3BE.1070409@andromeiberica.com> <8684.1180103080@sss.pgh.pa.us> <465719D5.9040107@andromeiberica.com> <19775.1180116288@sss.pgh.pa.us> <465727E8.8090806@andromeiberica.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 15:07:33 -0700 Message-Id: <1180476453.26915.79.camel@dogma.v10.wvs> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.4 (2.0.4-7) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - serv01.siteground137.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - postgresql.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - j-davis.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200705/591 X-Sequence-Number: 24981 On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 20:16 +0200, Arnau wrote: > The point I'm worried is performance. Do you think the performance > would be better executing exactly the same queries only adding an extra > column to all the tables e.g. customer_id, than open a connection to the > only one customers DB and execute the query there? Have you already considered using views with specific privileges to separate your customers? Regards, Jeff Davis