Received: from makus.postgresql.org (makus.postgresql.org [98.129.198.125])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D0C914518E8
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Thu,  8 Dec 2011 21:13:33 -0400 (AST)
Received: from mail-yx0-f174.google.com ([209.85.213.174])
	by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <ringerc@ringerc.id.au>) id 1RYp1m-0007r2-EU
	for pgsql-sql@postgresql.org; Fri, 09 Dec 2011 01:13:33 +0000
Received: by yenm11 with SMTP id m11so1645204yen.19
	for <pgsql-sql@postgresql.org>; Thu, 08 Dec 2011 17:13:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.236.181.225 with SMTP id l61mr8363248yhm.131.1323393196964;
	Thu, 08 Dec 2011 17:13:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ayaki.localdomain (124-169-254-28.dyn.iinet.net.au.
	[124.169.254.28])
	by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id d11sm14090577anc.4.2011.12.08.17.13.14
	(version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 08 Dec 2011 17:13:16 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4EE160A7.3070106@ringerc.id.au>
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2011 09:13:11 +0800
From: Craig Ringer <ringerc@ringerc.id.au>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110930 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: chester c young <chestercyoung@yahoo.com>
CC: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: partitions versus databases
References: <1323354369.98656.YahooMailClassic@web161406.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <1323354369.98656.YahooMailClassic@web161406.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="------------050105040204090004090208"
X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-)
X-Archive-Number: 201112/31
X-Sequence-Number: 36092

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------050105040204090004090208
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 12/08/2011 10:26 PM, chester c young wrote:
> have an db with about 15 tables that will handle many companies.  no data overlap between companies.  is it more efficient run-time to use one database and index each row by company id, and one database and partition each table by company id, or to create a database for each company?
>
> it is a web-based app using persistent connections.  no copying.
>

If you post a question on Stack Overflow and on the mailing list, please 
link to your stack overflow question from your mailing list post!

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8432636/in-postgresql-are-partitions-or-multiple-databases-more-efficient/

That'll help avoid duplication of effort, and make it easier for people 
searching for similar topics later to find out more.

--
Craig Ringer

--------------050105040204090004090208
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    On 12/08/2011 10:26 PM, chester c young wrote:
    <blockquote
cite="mid:1323354369.98656.YahooMailClassic@web161406.mail.bf1.yahoo.com"
      type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">have an db with about 15 tables that will handle many companies.  no data overlap between companies.  is it more efficient run-time to use one database and index each row by company id, and one database and partition each table by company id, or to create a database for each company?

it is a web-based app using persistent connections.  no copying.

</pre>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    If you post a question on Stack Overflow and on the mailing list,
    please link to your stack overflow question from your mailing list
    post!<br>
    <br>
    &nbsp;
    <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
      charset=ISO-8859-1">
    <a
href="http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8432636/in-postgresql-are-partitions-or-multiple-databases-more-efficient/">http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8432636/in-postgresql-are-partitions-or-multiple-databases-more-efficient/</a><br>
    <br>
    That'll help avoid duplication of effort, and make it easier for
    people searching for similar topics later to find out more.<br>
    <br>
    --<br>
    Craig Ringer<br>
  </body>
</html>

--------------050105040204090004090208--