Re: One huge db vs many small dbs - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Joshua D. Drake
Subject Re: One huge db vs many small dbs
Date
Msg-id 52A0F5EF.9030305@commandprompt.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: One huge db vs many small dbs  ("Nicholson, Brad (Toronto, ON, CA)" <bnicholson@hp.com>)
List pgsql-performance

>> One of the many questions we have is about performance of the db if we
>> work with only one (using a ClientID to separete de clients info) or thousands
>> of separate dbs. The management of the dbs is not a huge concert as we
>> have an automated tool.
>
> If you are planning on using persisted connections, the large number of DB approach is going to have a significant
disadvantage. You cannot pool connections between databases.  So if you have 2000 databases, you are going to need a
minimumof 2000 connections to service those database (assuming you want to keep at least one active connection open per
clientat a time). 

That isn't exactly true. You could run multiple poolers.

JD

>
> Brad.
>
>
>


--
Command Prompt, Inc. - http://www.commandprompt.com/  509-416-6579
PostgreSQL Support, Training, Professional Services and Development
High Availability, Oracle Conversion, Postgres-XC, @cmdpromptinc
For my dreams of your image that blossoms
    a rose in the deeps of my heart. - W.B. Yeats


pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Nicholson, Brad (Toronto, ON, CA)"
Date:
Subject: Re: One huge db vs many small dbs
Next
From: Mark Kirkwood
Date:
Subject: Re: WAL + SSD = slow inserts?