Johan, we considered this approach but concluded it would require too much re-development (more than just the database layer).
Thanks anyway. On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Johan De Meersman <vegiv...@tuxera.be>wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Michael Addyman < > michael.addy...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> >> I have now thought of having 1 table type per database (i.e. ~30 >> databases). >> This would be easier and cheaper to manage than hundreds of databases, and >> would also allow databases to be finely tuned to the table type, size, >> workload and writes : updates : reads ratio. >> >> However, re-developing the database layer to achieve this looks incredibly >> difficult. >> > > I didn't quite get that first time round, but I think I do, now. > > How about using triggers and views or stored procedures to insert/select > the username in a field in each table ? Assuming you have a separate user > per instance, that might solve a lot of problems :-) > > > > -- > Celsius is based on water temperature. > Fahrenheit is based on alcohol temperature. > Ergo, Fahrenheit is better than Celsius. QED. >
