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

21–30 of 141 posts

Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server

#21

Post by anarazel »

silon3 wrote: post #9
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.

I use MSSQL on a current project and really don't like it's query optimizer. It relies too much on statistics which means that slightly complex queries get random behavior really quickly, especially in the beginning as the database if growing. IMO, completely unsuitable for web apps where DBA is not sitting around 24/7. Is PostgreSQL better at this?

Not really. Postgres' planner is also statistics based. Yes that approach has problems, but the contrary, where you still use a plan that was appropriate for three rows with a couple million isn't good either. It's just a hard problem.

Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server

#22

Post by lassoman »

stevepike wrote: post #16
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?

Pentaho if you have no or little money or SSIS (comes with SQL Server licence)

Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server

#23

Post by Amezarak »

moron4hire wrote: post #18
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.

GO is also recognized by sqlcmd, so you're (potentially) still good with automation. I did actually run the above script in SSMS, but I ran most of the ones at my old job automated.

Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server

#24

Post by tehaugmenter »

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…

I mean you have a point on the OS, being in the cloud is a definite bonus. However caring what OS it's running on comes down to something he was brief about in his article. For me, I can manage an Linux server no issue with just a bash prompt, I can't honestly say the same about a Windows Server. Other people might argue Apache and running that on a Windows server is kind of pointless? I don't know, just spit-balling that one.

Obviously Windows would be IIS, which means overall the OS choice is a nice one. The fact that you can choose which one to host with, which means you get something comfortable.

Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server

#25

Post by blumkvist »

Huh... a person who compares databases with regards to analytics and doesn't mention OLAP. Doesn't mention ETL. Doesn't mention reporting. What kind of comparison is that? I often read reviews of databases which dismiss MSSQL completely. And that's fine when it is about building applications. HOWEVER, MSSQL comes with very featurefull ETL tools, very featurefull MOLAP and HOLAP and very featurell reporting suite. It also comes with some data mining algorithms for which I am not qualified to talk, but I've heard the functionality is pretty nice for a starting point. It also comes with an IDE for the people who do those things and a DBA tool for people who administer the databases.

Out of those things, postgres has a DBA tool out of the box. Yeah... nice comparison.

I find it particularly funny that he cites Dunning-Kruger. DK effect is not meant for others. It is meant for self-evaluation.

Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server

#26

Post by jmulho »

mauricemir wrote: post #14
CSDude wrote: post #5

Does anybody use PG/PLSQL? I wonder how it compares in practice with Oracle PLSQL.

Its quiet close I recall being impressed that i could reuse some Oracle Pl/SQL on Postgress

If you know PL/SQL, all you need is an example of the boilerplate that goes at the top and bottom of a PL/pgSQL procedure and you are good to go.

Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server

#27

Post by BrentOzar »

tehaugmenter wrote: post #24
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…

I mean you have a point on the OS, being in the cloud is a definite bonus. However caring what OS it's running on comes down to something he was brief about in his article. For me, I can manage an Linux server no issue with just a bash prompt, I can't honestly say the same about a Windows Server. Other people might argue Apache and running that on a Windows server is kind of pointless? I don't know, just spit-balling…

> For me, I can manage an Linux server no issue with just a bash prompt, I can't honestly say the same about a Windows Server.

Have you seen Windows Core and PowerShell? An increasing number of admins are doing just that - it's how we work at Stack Overflow, for example.

Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server

#28

Post by stevepike »

lassoman wrote: post #22
stevepike wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Pentaho if you have no or little money or SSIS (comes with SQL Server licence)

I tried Pentaho, but our ETL tasks are being written by engineers (at least right now), and it seemed much clunkier than just writing ruby scripts. Is it worth it in the long run?

Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server

#29

Post by sleepyhead »

MagicWishMonkey wrote: post #20
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.

If you are on Mac check out https://eggerapps.at/postico/

Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server

#30

Post by jmnicolas »

Postgres is better than SQL Server because with Postgres I always have the "awesome edition" : http://blog.codinghorror.com/oh-you-wanted-awesome-edition/

And I don't need a certification to understand the crazy MS licensing (I discovered recently that yes there is a MS certification program for their licenses as it's so byzantine).

Post reply on HN