> -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-performance-ow...@postgresql.org [mailto:pgsql- > performance-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Max > Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 5:42 AM > To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org > Subject: [PERFORM] One huge db vs many small dbs > > 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.
If you are planning on using persisted connections, the large number of DB approach is going to have a significant disadvantage. You cannot pool connections between databases. So if you have 2000 databases, you are going to need a minimum of 2000 connections to service those database (assuming you want to keep at least one active connection open per client at a time). Brad. -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
