Hi all,

I would like to know if several different data bases running
at the same time in a single server engine may degrade
performance compared to the same server engine with only one
data base, supposed same number of total users and same
number of total transactions in both cases.

Sql Anywhere 11.0. 1 in Windows 2003 server 32 bits

Thanks a lot in advance

All things being equal, it should not make any difference.

But things are never equal... it all depends on what you are trying to
accomplish. If multiple databases on one server solves some problem
you have, such as isolating data owned by different clients, then go
ahead. On the other hand, if you frequently need to join tables
located in different databases, then one database might be better; one
connection can only "see" one database, other databases are accessible
via proxy tables but those DO have performance problems.

Those are just two examples. Please tell us more about your
environment.

Breck


On 31 Oct 2009 07:17:24 -0800, Mgs wrote:

--
Breck Carter http://sqlanywhere.blogspot.com/

RisingRoad SQL Anywhere and MobiLink Professional Services
breck.carter (AT) risingroad (DOT) com

Hi Breck

Thank you very much for your answer.

The main reason to have multiple data bases is to isolate
them. They have the same schema but are used by different
small companies. The only exception is one table (products
table). It is a proxy table for all the data bases except
the main, the only one where it can be updated. And there is
no need to consolidate data between the data bases.>

Mgs

All things being equal, it should not make any difference.

See Chris Kleisath's blog: Multi-Tenant Database Architecture

http://iablog.sybase.com/kleisath/in...ecture-part-3/

Breck

On 1 Nov 2009 00:22:44 -0800, Mgs wrote:

--
Breck Carter http://sqlanywhere.blogspot.com/

RisingRoad SQL Anywhere and MobiLink Professional Services
breck.carter (AT) risingroad (DOT) com