Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server

pg-versus-ms.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 141 posts

Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server

#11

Post by lassoman »

BrentOzar wrote: post #2

If I was going to pick a relational database system, I'm not sure these would be the criteria I'd use: CSV support - if you do that much CSV extract/transform/load (or indeed, any kind of ETL work), use an ETL tool. SQL Server comes with SQL Server Integration Services for that kind of thing. Ergonomics of dropping and creating tables and stored procedures - the author's example is probably the toughest way I can thi…

Fully agree! This article is based on merits that I would hardly consider if making a choice between any relational engine. It is even more disturbing that the author claims to be a data analyst. CSV support.......R U serious? Who in the right mind would spend hundreds of thousands of $$$ for SQL Server Enterprise Edition licences and regret it because PostreSQL can do it better for free? I'm using both and they're both great but not for or in spite of the reasons outlined here. Author needs to educate herself/himself better before publishing this nonsense.

Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server

#12

Post by adekmm »

I've been SQL Server user for many years. And for last two years I started also using PostgreSQL. Today I use both of them in my project, and as a developer/dba I see pros and cons:

MS SQL: - The tools included like Management Studio are just great. This is totally next level to the Postgres tools. - Using multiple CPU cores for a single query is really helpfull in my scenario. - Easy continous backup to the cloud. - Included Integration Services, Analysis services are also easy and enugh for my usage.

Postgres: - Is running on linux, to it's cheaper. Even when we use SQL Server as Bizspark (for free now), the Azure Windows VM for it costs us much more, than VM with Linux. And of course when we want to cluster our DB, Postgres is even cheaper. - Great JSON support. There are parts of our project where it's helpfull. - Better configurability, like WAL, checkpoints etc. We have much better write performance on postgres than in sql server (probably just our case).

The other things really do not much difference. Both DB's can be extended, and extensions may be written in many languages. Both achieve great overall performance, both have strong community and a lot of documentation.

Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server

#13

Post by ExpiredLink »

ben_pr wrote: post #3

After seeing the title I assumed the verdict would be that MS SQL is way better. If I wrote a comparison that's how the result would end up. I've used MS SQL from 1998 and PostgreSQL from 2001 and have found MS SQL much easier to use. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

It's a one-page propaganda site (from someone from Shepperton, GB). I'm a big fan of PostgreSQL but this isn't helpful.

Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server

#15

Post by anarazel »

As somebody working on postgres, I don't find the comparison to be done in a particularly fair, or helpful, way. MSSQL is a pretty good database and deserves to be fairly evaluated.

Don't get me wrong, I have 'political' problems with MSSQL, but those shouldn't be disguised as technical ones.

Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server

#16

Post by stevepike »

BrentOzar wrote: post #2

If I was going to pick a relational database system, I'm not sure these would be the criteria I'd use: CSV support - if you do that much CSV extract/transform/load (or indeed, any kind of ETL work), use an ETL tool. SQL Server comes with SQL Server Integration Services for that kind of thing. Ergonomics of dropping and creating tables and stored procedures - the author's example is probably the toughest way I can thi…

Can you drop a recommendation for your favorite startup-friendly ETL tool?

Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server

#17

Post by moron4hire »

I get the feeling this guy hasn't had to deal with CSV in-the-wild. RFC4180 is a false prophet. I've never had a client give me CSV data that was actual, good CSV, thus I've always had to write a custom parser. Every. Single. Time.

Well, not anymore. Now I just refuse to do shit. "We can't change it" turns into "we contacted the original developer and made him fix his broken shit" when I turn into a complete pain in the ass.

Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server

#18

Post by moron4hire »

Amezarak wrote: post #8

> In MS SQL Server, a CREATE PROCEDURE statement cannot appear halfway through a batch of SQL statements. There's no good reason for this, it's just an arbitrary limitation. It means that extra manual steps are often required to execute a large batch of SQL. Manual steps increase risk and reduce efficiency. It's been a while, but I am pretty sure all you have to do is put GO before/after the CREATE PROCEDURE. I'm abs…

The GO statement is an artifact of SQL Server Management Studio. It's not an actual T-SQL construct. So if you are executing scripts in an automated way (like a continuous deployment scenario), you have to have some way to manually split up the batches.

Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server

#19

Post by threeseed »

mauricemir wrote: post #10
threeseed wrote: post #6

> Commercial products have support from people who support it because they are paid to. They do the minimum amount necessary to satisfy the terms of the SLA. This is pretty ridiculous and quite a bit insulting to the many people who do work for vendors. I work in a team that has a number of engineers supplied by vendors and they are generally fantastic. Highly qualified, more than happy to assist with tasks that aren…

So Oracle backport fixes now do they I remember having trouble getting my Oracle based system through y2k back in 98/99

Not sure what you're point is.

(a) Not all vendors are the same, (b) Not all situations are the same, (c) Open source isn't exactly world renowned for porting back fixes to older releases.

Making broad generalisations is never helpful.

Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server

#20

Post by MagicWishMonkey »

adekmm wrote: post #12

I've been SQL Server user for many years. And for last two years I started also using PostgreSQL. Today I use both of them in my project, and as a developer/dba I see pros and cons: MS SQL: - The tools included like Management Studio are just great. This is totally next level to the Postgres tools. - Using multiple CPU cores for a single query is really helpfull in my scenario. - Easy continous backup to the cloud. -…

The closest thing to SQL Server Management Studio I've found is Navicat. It's not as solid as Management Studio, and it's incredibly expensive, but it is much better than most of the other tools out there.

If you can expense the cost of the license you should definitely check it out.

Post reply on HN