4 ms·

Also interested in this. I architected my system with a single multi-tenant db. My thinking was that it simplified things initially (less admin / backups / pool

by aidos 10y ago

Also interested in this. I architected my system with a single multi-tenant db. My thinking was that it simplified things initially (less admin / backups / pooling etc) but it would be far easier to split into individual dbs later (than to combine). We are a b2b product and we've picked up customers around the world. Now it seems like it might make sense to shard geographically. Is that common?

karambahh 10y ago
We shard geographically, with a single multi-tenant Postgres schema per geographical area. You run into corner cases when a customer wants to operate into two distinct geographical areas, so basically you may have to maintain a central repository of tenants and, ultimately, under the hood, your tenant primary keys are not handled via local sequences.