From: Max <maxabbr@yahoo.com.br>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: One huge db vs many small dbs
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 02:42:10 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <1386240130.78000.YahooMailNeo@web163002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> (raw)
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-performance>
Hello,
We are starting a new project to deploy a solution in cloud with the possibility to be used for 2.000+ clients. Each of this clients will use several tables to store their information (our model has about 500+ tables but there's less than 100 core table with heavy use). Also the projected ammout of information per client could be from small (few hundreds tuples/MB) to huge (few millions tuples/GB).
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.
At Google there's lots of cases about this subject but none have a scenario that matchs with the one I presented above, so I would like to know if anyone here has a similar situation or knowledgement and could share some thoughts.
Thanks
Max
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: maxabbr@yahoo.com.br
Subject: Re: One huge db vs many small dbs
In-Reply-To: <1386240130.78000.YahooMailNeo@web163002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox