On 12/08/2011 10:26 PM, chester c young wrote: <blockquote
cite="mid:1323354369.98656.YahooMailClassic@web161406.mail.bf1.yahoo.com"type="cite"><pre wrap="">have an db with about
15tables that will handle many companies. no data overlap between companies. is it more efficient run-time to use one
databaseand index each row by company id, and one database and partition each table by company id, or to create a
databasefor each company?
it is a web-based app using persistent connections. no copying.
</pre></blockquote><br /> If you post a question on Stack Overflow and on the mailing list, please link to your stack
overflowquestion from your mailing list post!<br /><br /> <a
href="http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8432636/in-postgresql-are-partitions-or-multiple-databases-more-efficient/">http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8432636/in-postgresql-are-partitions-or-multiple-databases-more-efficient/</a><br
/><br/> That'll help avoid duplication of effort, and make it easier for people searching for similar topics later to
findout more.<br /><br /> --<br /> Craig Ringer<br />
