| From: | Ben Chobot <bench(at)silentmedia(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ivan Voras <ivoras(at)freebsd(dot)org> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: multi-tenant vs. multi-cluster |
| Date: | 2011-03-18 19:09:53 |
| Message-ID: | 5CDA93DE-FA4C-4F7C-9055-EC8619BBF8DA@silentmedia.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mar 18, 2011, at 11:47 AM, Ivan Voras wrote:
> 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)
Oh, I hadn't thought about WAL. Good point.
But data files are a function of tables and indexes, right? Having them in different schemas or different clusters isn't going to change that. I guess there are system tables but those are relatively trivial - I think?
> b) its own postgresql processes (many of them) running in memory
I believe this is entirely a function of client connections.
> c) its own shared_buffers in memory.
Given that each application will be independent, I don't see a different between clusters and schemas here either.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Katherine Jeschke | 2011-03-18 19:16:56 | Surge 2011 Conference CFP |
| Previous Message | Ivan Voras | 2011-03-18 18:47:20 | Re: multi-tenant vs. multi-cluster |