Multi-Tenant Database Architecture Patterns Explained
Bytebase - Database CI/CD and Security at Scale
Leading open source database DevSecOps solution for Developer, Security, DBA, and Platform Engineering team.
Originally posted in https://www.bytebase.com/blog/multi-tenant-database-architecture-patterns-explained/
Hi and welcome to Database DevOps Academy #84! We share Database DevOps insights and best practices for modern engineering organizations weekly. ??
In Issue #84, we explored the common patterns for multi-tenant database architectures and offered some best practices to adopt. ??
We frequently hear from prospects about their schema migration challenges. One of the top pain points is managing schemas where they employ a single DB per tenant architecture.
When building a SaaS application, determining the optimal database architecture for multi-tenancy is a pivotal decision that significantly influences scalability, security, cost-efficiency, and operational complexity. The architectural spectrum ranges from shared-everything models, where tenants share databases, schemas, and tables, to shared-nothing approaches, where each tenant has dedicated resources.
It's a recurring topic asked like in this Reddit post:
and has sparked a lot of tears in HackerNews:
Multi-Tenant Database Architecture Patterns
Let's explore the common patterns for multi-tenant database architectures:
Pattern 1: Shared Everything - Shared Database, Shared Schema
In this model, all tenants share the same database and the same tables. This is achieved by adding a `tenant_id` column to each table that requires tenant separation.
CREATE TABLE customers (
id INT PRIMARY KEY,
tenant_id INT NOT NULL,
name VARCHAR(255),
email VARCHAR(255),
...
INDEX(tenant_id)
);
Pros:
Cons:
Pattern 2: Shared Database, Separate Schemas
This pattern uses a single database but creates a separate schema for each tenant.
-- Create schema for Tenant 1
CREATE SCHEMA tenant1;
-- Create tables in Tenant 1's schema
CREATE TABLE tenant1.customers (
id INT PRIMARY KEY,
name VARCHAR(255),
email VARCHAR(255),
...
);
-- Create schema for Tenant 2
CREATE SCHEMA tenant2;
-- Create tables in Tenant 2's schema
CREATE TABLE tenant2.customers (
id INT PRIMARY KEY,
name VARCHAR(255),
email VARCHAR(255),
...
);
Pros:
Cons:
Pattern 3: Database-per-Tenant
In this pattern, each tenant gets their own dedicated database.
领英推荐
-- Create Tenant 1's database
CREATE DATABASE tenant1;
-- Create Tenant 2's database
CREATE DATABASE tenant2;
Pros:
Cons:
Summary
We recommend avoiding the Shared Database, Separate Schemas approach because it introduces complexity comparable to Database per Tenant without offering sufficient isolation to meet stringent regulatory compliance requirements.
When starting your greenfield project, the Database per Tenant model should only be chosen if your business demands strict regulatory compliance in day 1.
In summary, our guidance is to adopt the Shared Database, Shared Schema approach whenever possible. Only transition to Database per Tenant if compliance, scalability, or customization requirements necessitate it. Avoid Shared Database, Separate Schemas, as it combines the drawbacks of both models without delivering significant benefits.
Schema Migration Best Practices with Multiple Tenants
Schema migrations are inherently challenging, and if you opt for the Database per Tenant model, the complexity increases significantly:
To tackle this, you should adopt best practices:
Version Control for Migration Scripts
Automated SQL Analysis in CI Pipeline
Idempotent Migrations
Staged Rollout Strategy
Backward Compatibility
Tenant Metadata Registry
Bytebase offers batch change, SQL Review, GitOps to streamline and simplify schema migrations for the Database per Tenant model.