Sql updating multiple tables 100 chinese dating site
This document is subject to change without notice and may not be referred to as an OGC Standard.This is a revision to Geo Package 1.2 (OGC 12-128r14).You agree upon termination of any kind to destroy or cause to be destroyed the Intellectual Property together with all copies in any form, whether held by you or by any third party.Except as contained in this notice, the name of LICENSOR or of any other holder of a copyright in all or part of the Intellectual Property shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Intellectual Property without prior written authorization of LICENSOR or such copyright holder.IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR ANY CONTRIBUTOR OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS TO THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, OR ANY DIRECT, SPECIAL, INDIRECT OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, OR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM ANY ALLEGED INFRINGEMENT OR ANY LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR UNDER ANY OTHER LEGAL THEORY, ARISING OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION, USE, COMMERCIALIZATION OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. You may terminate it at any time by destroying the Intellectual Property together with all copies in any form.The license will also terminate if you fail to comply with any term or condition of this Agreement.Each project has the same data model, but is independent of all others.My inclination is to use one database to store all projects. I would make separate databases, because otherwise, if each client is using a similar schema, you're going to either have to combine tables or use lots of prefixes, or have link tables containing client identifying information.
edit: also, there's no way this is a sysadmin asking the question.Unless there is pressing need to keep the data in one place, I suggest separating them. If you're good at the design/config/sql you'd be amazed what you can get out of one modern day ~K server.It will make moving the data between servers easier (if you want to split them over multiple database servers once load grows to the point of being an issue, for instance, or if a client wants to pay to take the app in-house), it can make backups and subsequent restores more convenient (dependant, or course, on the backup method(s) you use), and it reduces the risk of code bugs allowing clients (accidentally or through intentional hacking around) to see each others data. The cheap and dirty web-scaling route would be 1:1 customer:db.It really becomes less of a tech question and more of a business one.How many devs and admins do you have now, how talented are they, what do they already know, what kind of traffic do you expect in the very near term, what kind of revenue would it take to buy/lease 10x the hardware it takes for that, etc.