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

PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL

pg-versus-ms.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 106 posts

Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL

#61

Post by JohnBooty »

sarciszewski wrote: post #2

I too am biased towards PG. At one of my previous gigs, I had to develop a HTML5 mobile app around a MS SQL database (though eventually we migrated to PostgreSQL). Among the problems we ran into: A) Indexes disappeared without rhyme or reason. (This might have been a "too many cooks in the kitchen" thing, where someone restored from a backup and didn't tell anyone.) B) In the default configuration provided by the php…

I've been using MSSQL since the 7.0 days in the 1990s and have never seen nor heard of A) happening. As you said, I'm certain this was "too many cooks in the kitchen."

Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL

#62

Post by duncans »

blahblahOOO wrote: post #47
sergiosgc wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First, you can import/export csv's. Hell all you need to do to export, is right click the view and hit export, then select .csv. Are you saying there is no programatic interface for exporting csv? You must rely on the administration tool to generate the csv for you???

@sergiosgc Nope. There are several ways of doing this. Using the GUI is the easiest, and the most common method. You can use SSIS, or the bcp command. For example: bcp "SELECT blah... FROM blah" queryout C:\..\blah.csv -c -t, -T –S

If there was one thing the author was right about it was MSSQL's poor CSV support. BCP doesn't handle escaping special characters in CSV (e.g. commas, quotes, tabs if you using tabs as delimiter).

Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL

#63

Post by JohnBooty »

fluffygrenade wrote: post #54
partisan wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just curious as to why the article merits this type of vitriol. I'm a .NET/SQL Server guy from the states, so I have no skin in this game, but it just seems to me that this is unwarranted.

Because most of it is circa 1998 Slashdot-esque content which really isn't constructive and only damages what little faith people have in this industry even further. The article itself is vitriol. Not only that, the site is designed to intentionally hide the author obviously because being accountable for an opinion is probably bad for them in this case.

So your logic is: "This guy has database opinions I don't like, and he has gotten some facts wrong, so he ought to put his real identity and address on the Internet for all to see?" I mean, what? I'll take Slashdot-style open source zealotry over something that smells a little bit like 4chan-style threats of "doxxing," thanks very much.

Your comment does not belong on Hacker News.

Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL

#64

Post by WoodenChair »

jordigh wrote: post #44
threeseed wrote: post #13

The author is pretty misinformed about how enterprises work. a) Security is critical. It routinely trumps common sense and evidence. And telling people "not to fall for it" is advice that will get you nowhere. b) Vendor support is critical. And no your local mom+pop consulting shop doesn't count. PostgreSQL could really do with solid, global companies like Microsoft, Datastax, Mongo etc who offer training and proper…

What vendor support do you get exactly from Microsoft? Their EULA typically has a SHOUTY CAPS NO WARRANTY CLAUSE, so what does the SLA cover? Have you successfully resorted to the SLA to handle problems you've had? I'm honestly curious. I just don't know how SLAs work, and whom can you blame if you have problems with MS SQL.

> What vendor support do you get exactly from Microsoft? Their EULA typically has a SHOUTY CAPS NO WARRANTY CLAUSE, so what does the SLA cover?

Bringing up the "no warranty" clause is a total straw man argument. Almost every software license (whether proprietary or open source) has a no warranty clause.

Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL

#65

Post by jongalloway2 »

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #31
DrJokepu wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That being said, if your relational database has 1GB records, you really need to reevaluate whether you are using the right tool for the job.

While I kind of agree, what exactly is the "right tool" for storing large blobs? You can use the filesystem but then you have to manage data migration/sync by "hand" which is kind of a bitch for distributed systems. Honestly storing large blobs with meta-data telling you about the blobs is extremely common. I'm yet to hear of how you're meant to do it correctly.

Usually storing in filesystem with a reference in database seems to work best. Much easier for database management and backup, and file management as well.

The OP doesn't appear to have hear of SQL Server FileStream or FileTables, which handle this abstraction for you: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff929144.aspx

Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL

#66

Post by ely-s »

Microsoft has a thing for very long names though – possibly its greatest achievement ever is

    Microsoft® WinFX™ Software Development Kit for Microsoft® Pre-Release Windows Operating System Code-Named "Longhorn", Beta 1 Web Setup

Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL

#67

Post by appleflaxen »

keithwarren wrote: post #15
Retra wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The author spends quite some time explaining that MS SQL Server's CSV is mangled and broken, and what you've said is that it exports CSV. So what does your comment contribute, except to say that you didn't read the article?

QFA "MS SQL Server can neither import nor export CSV"

I took it to mean "can neither import nor export conformant CSV"

Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL

#69

Post by socceroos »

appleflaxen wrote: post #67
keithwarren wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

QFA "MS SQL Server can neither import nor export CSV"

I took it to mean "can neither import nor export conformant CSV"

Yeah, me too. The author points this out painstakingly too. I'm not familiar with MS SQL CSV exporting so I can't verify the truth of that statement though.

Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL

#70

Post by jamhan »

For all its faults, this article does mention one thing about PostgreSQL that I have always been happy with: ease of installation.

Having been through many, many installs of Oracle and MS-SQL in my career, the speed at which you can get a PostgreSQL server up and running with data is simply awesome.

Post reply on HN