let me first state i'm a huge postgres fan, i implement whenever i have the option. it's a great database and i'm a firm believer in open source.. however if a company is willing to shell out the coin to run MSSQL, i'm not complaining. MSSQL is very robust, very fast, and very easy to administer. i hate giving MS their props but they did a good job with it..
PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server
51–60 of 141 posts
Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server
#52This website is great. However, this doesn't actually touch on the real issue. I work at a MSSQL shop, and all of us know and are convinced that PG is better. Most of us use PG for our side projects and some of the dev's don't even use windows that much, with some custom MSSQL plugins we've built for linux. However, the problem still exists, of how do you port a ton of Databases over to Postgres? We're a multi-tenanc…
PostgreSQL doesn't have clustered indexes, materialized views, partitioned views, or a sane backup/restore procedure.
If you're already a licensed MSSQL customer, I'm not sure what advantages PostgreSQL could really have compared to it's slower performance and much higher operational costs.
Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Oh, do you work for SO Brent?
> Oh, do you work for SO Brent?
I just do SQL Server consulting for 'em from time to time. They're ridiculously sharp guys, so they don't need me much anymore.
Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server
#54The last time this article came up the consensus was that the author was pretty biased towards Postgres and had little to no experience with actual MS SQL Server use. Also, the lack of author identity was frowned upon. Lastly, the conjecture and attitude towards Microsoft lacks some substance. Conclusion: The author is free to write whatever he likes, but take this resource with a pinch of salt. I use both Postgres a…
>The last time this article came up the consensus was that the author was pretty biased towards Postgres and had little to no experience with actual MS SQL Server use.
Also, the lack of author identity was frowned upon.
Lastly, the conjecture and attitude towards Microsoft lacks some substance.
So there was not any substancial critique and responce to the specific points he makes?
Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server
#55Can someone explain this one to me?
PostgreSQL supports the RETURNING clause, allowing UPDATE, INSERT and DELETE statements to return values from affected rows. This is elegant and useful. MS SQL Server has the OUTPUT clause, which requires a separate table variable definition to function. This is clunky and inconvenient and forces a programmer to create and maintain unnecessary boilerplate code.
So I have the equivalent of the following in one of my projects:
UPDATE sometable SET someField = @parameter
OUTPUT Inserted.field1, Inserted.field2
WHERE ...
Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server
#56This website is great. However, this doesn't actually touch on the real issue. I work at a MSSQL shop, and all of us know and are convinced that PG is better. Most of us use PG for our side projects and some of the dev's don't even use windows that much, with some custom MSSQL plugins we've built for linux. However, the problem still exists, of how do you port a ton of Databases over to Postgres? We're a multi-tenanc…
PostgreSQL doesn't have clustered indexes, materialized views, partitioned views, or a sane backup/restore procedure. If you're already a licensed MSSQL customer, I'm not sure what advantages PostgreSQL could really have compared to it's slower performance and much higher operational costs.
Postgres absolutely has materialized views (I don't know what makes a backup / restore procedure "sane", but having had to do it for both SQL Server and Postgres I would definitely call Postgres's "saner").
Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server
#57The last time this article came up the consensus was that the author was pretty biased towards Postgres and had little to no experience with actual MS SQL Server use. Also, the lack of author identity was frowned upon. Lastly, the conjecture and attitude towards Microsoft lacks some substance. Conclusion: The author is free to write whatever he likes, but take this resource with a pinch of salt. I use both Postgres a…
And lack of publication date, what was true in 2010 might not be true in 2015. How do we know which versions he is comparing? Both PostgreSQL and MS SQL make very significant progress every year.
Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server
#58The whole thing took about a minute to write and a second to run. It confirmed that some of his folders had a problem and told him which ones they were. How would you do this in Windows?
I'm so tired of this. Just because you don't already know Powershell and are too lazy to learn doesn't mean it doesn't exist. A know-nothing Windows user might as well say, "If I want to select and move arbitrary files on Windows, I can point and control-click in seconds. How would you do that in the Linux CLI?" In both instances, it comes across as ignorant to anyone who actually knows the ecosystem being derided.
Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
SSIS is the most frustrating, worthwhile bundled app I've seen. It's gotten significantly better but for what is essentially a giant XML writer they sure do like to hide all the options and configurations. I love the API though, so handy.
I don't think so. I used it since it was DTS, not SSIS and whilst Informatica is better at all things ETL, SSIS is great for what it can do out of the box. Besides, if it can't, you can always do it via custom C#or VB extension. Just finished a multi-terabyte data warehouse project where all data is loaded using SSIS and ControlM and it works great! The dev process was also easy and trouble-free.
I can't tell if I know you now...
Anyways, yes, it's very powerful and an excellent tool but I always have to describe it as awfulsome. SSISDB has made great improvements to the setup and promotion of objects which previously could be a pretty big headache (especially when you're not the one deploying etc). Functions for the various tasks/settings can be hidden and it can take a while to convince newcomers that the options are available, you just have to...poke around a bit. It comes with a substantial amount of controls.
The metadata/conversion of data can be frustrating but automation greater improves this with a quick controlling framework and the sys tables, it also makes moving data across hundreds of tables a breeze. It is very fast and very stable and I'm glad it's getting improvements and having focused development.
Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server
#60This website is great. However, this doesn't actually touch on the real issue. I work at a MSSQL shop, and all of us know and are convinced that PG is better. Most of us use PG for our side projects and some of the dev's don't even use windows that much, with some custom MSSQL plugins we've built for linux. However, the problem still exists, of how do you port a ton of Databases over to Postgres? We're a multi-tenanc…
PostgreSQL doesn't have clustered indexes, materialized views, partitioned views, or a sane backup/restore procedure. If you're already a licensed MSSQL customer, I'm not sure what advantages PostgreSQL could really have compared to it's slower performance and much higher operational costs.
Both databases have a bunch advantages over each other. There is no obvious winner.
PostgreSQL has better performance for some loads (as far as I know there is no clear winner in performance), better GIS support, writable CTEs, excellent built-in JSON and array support, an amazing CLI, and personally I think PostgreSQL has nicer built-in types and functions.