Daniel wrote: > DB[n]: > * Specific information for Company[n] > where all the DB[n]s share the same schema, but differ in the data they > hold. The rationale for that was that a company specific DB could grow > quite large. If all the Company Specific data was held in one big > database for all client companies, a join with the company would always > be required, taking a performance hit since some of those companies have > quite a bit of data. If all data are always grouped by company, there may not be much of a hit at all.
> Does it make sense in Cache to split data like that? I think yes. > Is it just a much > better solution to have the data all in one DB, instead of spread out? I think no. There is a "security" issue here. By keeping the data segregated an erroneous join or query lacking the WHERE Company=:company clause could expose data unintentionally. I probably would separate them simply because doing so seems safer.
