Oops! andrei(dot)badea(at)magicware(dot)cz (Andrei Badea) was seen spray-painting on a wall:
> we are developing web applications and are hosting the databases of
> these applications on our MS SQL server. There are about 50 of them at
> the moment, but the traffic is not very large (the average is a few
> tens requests per hour and database).
> We are considering switching to PostgreSQL, but we would like to know
> if it handles more than a few databases on a single server well. If
> there's anyone here operating lots of databases on a server, we'd be
> glad to hear your experience.
There can be some peculiar interactions if there are databases with
substantially different traffic patterns sharing a backend (and
therefore shared buffers); that should only be particularly important
if traffic is heavy.
Your situation doesn't sound like it ought to be terribly challenging,
except at those inevitable moments when your system gets hit by some
sort of "thundering herd" of updates, and it's hard to avoid that
output = ("cbbrowne" "@" "cbbrowne.com")
In a world without fences, who needs Gates?
In response to
pgsql-advocacy by date
|Next:||From: Christopher Kings-Lynne||Date: 2004-06-01 01:22:20|
|Subject: DSPAM PostgreSQL support|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2004-05-31 15:16:00|
|Subject: Re: Many databases on a PostgreSQL server|