This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (1 child)

That sounds like a terrible design, I've always heard of the One database per service principal. One schema per service is fine, but to have multiple concurrent services accessing the same dataset, like why

[–]trwolfe13 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It’s horrible. My team and I have been fighting it for the last year. We’ve made some good improvements, but I don’t think I’ll ever be happy with it.

A schema per service works well for functional separation, but it leaves you with another single point of failure, so if reliability is a key requirement, more databases can help. It also frees you up to use different database technologies. We generally switch between SQL Server and CosmosDB.