| From: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Subbiah, Stalin" <SSubbiah(at)netopia(dot)com>, "'pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | "'pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PERFORM] Databases Vs. Schemas |
| Date: | 2004-03-23 05:19:50 |
| Message-ID: | 200403222119.50331.josh@agliodbs.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-performance |
Stalin,
> We are evaluating the options for having multiple databases vs. schemas on a
> single database cluster for a custom grown app that we developed. Each app
> installs same set of tables for each service. And the service could easily
> be in thousands. so Is it better to have 1000 databases vs 1000 schemas in a
> database cluster. What are the performance overhead of having multiple
> databases vs. schemas (if any). I'm leaning towards having schemas rather
> than databases but i would like to get others opinion on this. Appreciate
> your reply.
No performance difference AFAIK. The real question is whether you have to
have queries joining several "databases". If yes, use Schema; if no, use
databases.
--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-03-23 05:20:21 | Re: [PERFORM] Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux |
| Previous Message | Subbiah, Stalin | 2004-03-23 00:05:45 | Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2004-03-23 05:20:21 | Re: [PERFORM] Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux |
| Previous Message | Eric Brown | 2004-03-23 01:30:29 | Re: severe performance issue with planner |