We are looking for multi tenancy but at scale. That's why the sharding and partitioning. It depends how you look at the distributed part.
BR
Matej
29. jan. 2018 17.50 je oseba "Rakesh Kumar" <rakeshkumar464@xxxxxxx> napisala:
> On Jan 29, 2018, at 09:34 , Matej <gmatej@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Everyone.
>
> We are looking at a rather large fin-tech installation. But as scalability requirements are high we look at sharding of-course.
>
> I have looked at many sources for Postgresql sharding, but we are a little confused as to shared with schema or databases or both.
>
>
> So far our understanding:
>
> SCHEMA.
>
> PROS:
> - seems native to PG
> - backup seems easier
> - connection pooling seems easier, as you can use same connection between shard.
>
> CONS:
> - schema changes seems litlle more complicated
> - heard of backup and maintenance problems
> - also some caching problems.
>
> DATABASE:
>
> PROS:
> - schema changes litlle easier
> - backup and administration seems more robust
>
> CONS:
> - heard of vacuum problems
> - connection pooling is hard, as 100 shards would mean 100 pools
>
>
> So what is actually the right approach? If anyone could shed some light on my issue.
>From your description it seems your requirement is more of multi tenancy in a non distributed env, rather than distributed Sharding env.
