| ▲ | DangitBobby 3 hours ago | |||||||
I guess the question then becomes, what problem does a multi-tenancy setup solve that an isolated database setup doesn't? Are they really not solving the same problem for a user perspective, or is it only from their own engineering perspective? And how do those decisions ultimately impact the product they can surface to users? | ||||||||
| ▲ | raw_anon_1111 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
Off the top of my head, managing 100 different database instances takes a lot more work from the business standpoint than managing 1 database with 100 users. The article also mentioned that they isolate by project_id. That implies one customer (assume a business) can isolate permissions more granulary. | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ▲ | steveBK123 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
With multi-tenant vs multi-database decision one driver would be the level of legal/compliance/risk/cost/resource drivers around how segregated users really are. Multi-database is more expensive generally but is a more brain dead guaranteed way to ensure the users are properly segregated, resilient across cloud/database/etc software releases that may regress something in a multi-tenant setup. Multi-tenant you always run the risk of a software update, misconfiguration or operational error exposing existence of other users / their metadata / their data / their usage / etc. You also have a lot more of a challenge engineering for resource contention. | ||||||||