| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Subbiah, Stalin" <SSubbiah(at)netopia(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "'pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "'pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Databases Vs. Schemas |
| Date: | 2004-03-22 22:04:50 |
| Message-ID: | 8796.1079993090@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-performance |
"Subbiah, Stalin" <SSubbiah(at)netopia(dot)com> writes:
> Is it better to have 1000 databases vs 1000 schemas in a
> database cluster.
You almost certainly want to go for schemas, at least from a performance
point of view. The overhead of a schema is small (basically one more
row in pg_namespace) whereas the overhead of a database is not trivial.
The main reason you might not want to use schemas is if you want fairly
airtight separation between different services. Separate databases
would prevent services from looking at each others' catalog entries.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Subbiah, Stalin | 2004-03-23 00:05:45 | Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux |
| Previous Message | Sam Barnett-Cormack | 2004-03-22 21:34:46 | Re: Slow Foreign Key |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Subbiah, Stalin | 2004-03-23 00:05:45 | Benchmarking postgres on Solaris/Linux |
| Previous Message | Subbiah, Stalin | 2004-03-22 21:30:24 | Databases Vs. Schemas |