Re: hundreds of schema vs hundreds of databases
От | Merlin Moncure |
---|---|
Тема | Re: hundreds of schema vs hundreds of databases |
Дата | |
Msg-id | b42b73150705290639u891791fge166c9d9f072146a@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: hundreds of schema vs hundreds of databases ("Albe Laurenz" <all@adv.magwien.gv.at>) |
Список | pgsql-general |
On 5/29/07, Albe Laurenz <all@adv.magwien.gv.at> wrote: > > I have an application with some hundreds users, each one > > having the same > > data definitions, and each one storing up to 2 GB of data. > > A user have just access to his own data. His data will have its own > > tablespace. > > > > Therefore, it seems to me I have a choice between "one database per > > user" and "one schema per user in the same database". > > > > What is the best practice here ? Which solution will be the > > easiest to manage ? > > Advantages of many databases: > - Each database is smaller. > - No danger of one user accessing another user's data (because of > misconfigured permissions and similar). > - Guaranteed independence of each user's data. > - More scalable: If you decide that one machine or one cluster > is not enough to handle the load, you can easily transfer some > of the databases somewhere else. > > Advantages of one database with many schemata: > - Fewer databases to administrate. > > I'd probably go for many databases. you missed one possible advantage of schemas...database structures can be more easily shared. For example, you can join one of the user's private tables with a shared central table. With multiple databases, you have to resort to other strategies to do that, for example dblink. Schemas are designed to the effect of giving a private data area in a large shared database. Separate databases would be preferred if the databases are backing difrferent applications and completely unrelated. merlin
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: