For production use Postgres (first choice) or MySQL. Do your homework on indexing and other optimization tricks.
If your site gets big enough to have performance problems because there are too many rows in a table, you will also have enough income to hire a really good dba :). On Tuesday, July 24, 2012 3:39:11 PM UTC-4, Alec Taylor wrote: > > I was also worried that running queries such as "is user in this group?", > "how many events does this group have?" would be much less efficient with > everyones data in one place. > > But it's probably just a perception thing, as you say, and it sounds like > the drawbacks outweigh the benefits... :\ > > So thanks for alleviating my concerns > > On Tuesday, July 24, 2012 9:57:46 AM UTC+10, pbreit wrote: >> >> On Monday, July 23, 2012 3:01:40 PM UTC-7, Cliff Kachinske wrote: >>> >>> > Separate DBs sounds messy. >>> >>> Some elaboration on that point. >>> >> >> Everything that is simple to do on one DB becomes complicated to do on >> multiple DBs. For example, I run a multi-tenant site that I constantly run >> queries against all tenants. That would be a pain with separate DBs. Same >> with migrations, backups, etc. >> >> And I don't see much actual benefit of splitting into multiple DBs. The >> benefits I hear about seem mostly perceptual (data isolation, etc). >> > --
