Re: partitions versus databases

On 2011-12-08, chester c young <chestercyoung(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
> have an db with about 15 tables that will handle many companies. no data overlap between companies. is it more efficient run-time to use one database and index each row by company id, and one database and partition each table by company id, or to create a database for each company?
>
> it is a web-based app using persistent connections. no copying.
>

if you know you will never want to aggregate data across several
companies. databases are cheap, portable, easily duplicated, and
self-contained, can easily be dumped, restored, and dropped
individually, go with one per company.

if there's a possibility you may want to merge two companies, or
aggregate data in some other way you want to put them all in the
same database so that sequences can be shared to ensure that ids
are unique etc... you still have the option of partitioning by
schema, table name, or just by tagging each record.

--
⚂⚃ 100% natural