On 07/05/20, Avinash Kumar (avinash.vallarapu@gmail.com) wrote: > >> Our application serves multiple tenants. Each tenant has the schema > >> with a few hundreds of tables and few functions. > >> We have 2000 clients so we have to create 2000 schemas in a single > >> database.
> > That is one option but I wouldn't say you must. If you cannot get > > individual tables to be multi-tenant you are probably better off having one > > database per client on a shared cluster - at least given the size of the > > schema and number of clients. > > > I am working on a similar problem. > 1 database per each client may be a killer when you have a connection > pooler that creates a pool for a unique combination of (user,database).
One of our clusters has well over 500 databases fronted by pg_bouncer.
We get excellent connection "flattening" using pg_bouncer with per-database connection spikes dealt with through a reserve pool.
What if you see at least 4 connections being established by each client during peak ? And if you serve 4 or 2 connections per each DB, then you are creating 1000 or more reserved connections with 500 DBs in a cluster.
The nice thing about separate databases is that it is easy to scale horizontally.
Agreed. But, how about autovacuum ? Workers shift from DB to DB and 500 clusters means you may have to have a lot of manual vacuuming in place as well.
