Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote: >Another option to combat the backup/restore/migrate thing... how about >having one database per user? Or smaller groups? I discussed it with >Abhijit, he didn't like it because we'd start too many postgres >servers.
I think I have to agree with Abhijit here, the downsides to that solution are: - Too much overhead in managing all the different postgresql databases (and tablespaces and such). - Too many database connections. - Deduplication of content becomes difficult if not impossible. - Doing a restore becomes somewhat of another challenge, because now you have to figure out which parts of which database to restore. - The nice thing about a database is that you configure it once, then use it for everything to keep things stored in a structured way. Fragmenting/sharding it like this increases complexity too fast. The natural sharding size would be approximately one postgresql database per physical server. This proposal would need a lot more databases per physical server. -- Stephen.
