This is the right way to think about it. :-) On Tuesday, 24 July 2012 21:56:18 UTC-5, Cliff Kachinske wrote: > > 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). >>> >>
--
