-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 10/21/06 01:08, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 11:03:12PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> I believe the reason we're using individual databases is for marketing >> purposes. aparently being >> able to say its a single tenent application is a selling point. >> >> Although if its going to be too problematic we may switch to a single db. >> > If you use a standard database (I'm familiar with Postgres, so that is > what I will use for an example), you can create a single DB cluster that > contains many databases. Based on access restrictions, each database > can be "single tenant" since you must create the database and the user > and then provide rights. Or you can create the user and then the > database, making the user the owner of that databse.
Are you referring to schemas? That would be a better idea than individual databases, and allows for security, but you still have the problem of 100000x N number of tables. - -- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson LA USA Is "common sense" really valid? For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins are mud people. However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFOdtlS9HxQb37XmcRAr05AJ0QNgRHWZaIOVfWEBbCizMg25p2lwCeKjAc k3OGMdhcXBPOndkXZ1MwG8A= =2lIC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
