I am using a similar solution, and I tested it with a test containing
20K+ different schemas. Postgres didn't show slowness at all even
after the 20K (over 2 million total tables) were created. So I have
feeling it can grow even more.
Guy.
On 9/28/06, snacktime <snacktime@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm re evaluating a few design choices I made a while back, and one
> that keeps coming to the forefront is data separation. We store
> sensitive information for clients. A database for each client isn't
> really workable, or at least I've never though of a way to make it
> workable, as we have several thousand clients and the databases all
> have to be accessed through a limited number of web applications where
> performance is important and things like persistant connections are a
> must. I've always been paranoid about a programmer error in an
> application resulting in data from multiple clients getting mixed
> together. Right now we create a schema for each client, with each
> schema having the same tables. The connections to the database are
> from an unprivileged user, and everything goes through functions that
> run at the necessary privileges. We us set_search_path to
> public,user. User data is in schema user and the functions are in the
> public schema. Every table has a client_id column.
>
> This has worked well so far but it's a real pain to manage and as we
> ramp up I'm not sure it's going to scale that well. So anyways my
> questions is this. Am I being too paranoid about putting all the data
> into one set of tables in a common schema? For thousands of clients
> what would you do?
>
> Chris
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>
--
Family management on rails: http://www.famundo.com - coming soon!
My development related blog: http://devblog.famundo.com
