Message-ID: <4B87DBEC.5000105@emolecules.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 06:34:20 -0800
From: Craig James <craig_james@emolecules.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (X11/20090817)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com>
CC: elias ghanem <e.ghanem@acteos.com>, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Multiple data base on same server
References: <201002261242.o1QCgoka009150@relay-ext.ornis.com>
	<4B87C6A5.6040005@archonet.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B87C6A5.6040005@archonet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Richard Huxton wrote:
> On 26/02/10 12:45, elias ghanem wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Thanks for your answer,
>> Concerning the second point, each db have different table that are 
>> logically
>> related (for ex, tables for configuration, tables for business...) 
>> plus I'm
>> planning to put the indexes on their own tablespaces.
>> Concerning the disks I will maybe stored on multiple disks (but surely 
>> not
>> 200-300). So I'm just wondering If this big number of tablespaces on a 
>> same
>> db server may cause problems,
> 
> If the tablespaces aren't on different disks, I'm not sure what the 
> point is.

Our policy is that *every* database has its own tablespace.  It doesn't cost you anything, and it gives you great flexibility if you add new disks.  You can easily move an entire database, or a bunch of databases, by just moving the data pointing to the new location with symlinks.  Once you put a bunch of databases into a single tablespace, moving subsets of them becomes very difficult.

It also makes it really easy to find who is using resources.

We operate about 450 databases spread across several servers.  Postgres has no trouble at all managing hundreds of databases.

Craig