Re: multi-tenant vs. multi-cluster

From: Ivan Voras <ivoras(at)freebsd(dot)org>
To: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: multi-tenant vs. multi-cluster
Date: 2011-03-18 18:47:20
Message-ID: im09bo$s5r$1@dough.gmane.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On 18/03/2011 19:17, Ben Chobot wrote:

> if we're talking an extra 50MB of memory per cluster, that will start to add up.

Consider this: each such cluster will have:

a) its own database files on the drives (WAL, data - increasing IO)
b) its own postgresql processes (many of them) running in memory
c) its own shared_buffers in memory.

It is highly unlikely that you will manage anything decent with this
type of configuration with a non-trivial number of clusters.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ben Chobot 2011-03-18 19:09:53 Re: multi-tenant vs. multi-cluster
Previous Message Merlin Moncure 2011-03-18 18:18:08 Re: query taking much longer since Postgres 8.4 upgrade