One of the major attractions of MS SQL Server 2014 is memory optimized tables (Hekaton engine) which removes locks completely from the database through snapshot versioning of rows. Does postgresql has anything similar to that?
PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server
61–70 of 141 posts
Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server
#62I'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 write performance comes down to lack of clustered indexes on PostgreSQL.
So yeah, it'll have better INSERT performance, but the queries will be slower. There's really no way around that. A large data set on disk that's out of order will always be slower than the one that's in-order.
IMO MSSQL makes the right call for the vast majority of use-cases.
PostgreSQL has -no- materialized views (I stand corrected! Introduced in v9.3). No view update support. No partitioned view support. No sane backup/restore process. It's a great database if your primary concern is licensing cost. But if your primary concern is operational cost and even just multi-gigabyte data sets it's really frustratingly rudimentary compared to what MSSQL delivered over a decade ago.
But that's just me. It's free. And I'm thankful for that. I just find it really frustrating that PostgreSQL supports querying on JSON, but doesn't support backing up and restoring the database in binary format.
Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server
#63The 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.
He says upfront that he's comparing PostgreSQL 9.3 and MS SQL Server 2014
Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server
#64I'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.
I have found DbVisualizer [1] to be a superior tool and it supports almost every database in existence, Postgres and SQL Server included.
Plus it's completely cross-platform and runs on Linux, Windows and OS X.
[1]: http://www.dbvis.com
Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server
#65The 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…
I work in the Windows sphere at work and I really like Powershell. It has a ton of great features out of the box (especially for parallelism) as well as solid bread and butter operations. Although it's a bit verbose and not as mature as Bash it's essential to know for any Windows developer.
Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server
#66The 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.
Actually he says in the first line of the third paragraph:
> Unless otherwise stated I am referring to PostgreSQL 9.3 and MS SQL Server 2014
Which makes his opinions timeless and gives context. A date on it would be welcome, but just from the software version you can figure out if it applies to you or your scenario.
Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server
#67PostgreSQL has bad C# drivers, other than that I would choose it over MSSQL.
Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
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: Materialized Views: I stand corrected! Thanks. (CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW was introduced in v9.3)
The backup/restore procedure in PostgreSQL (last I looked, latest I've used is 9.2) is just statement generation. It's not a binary backup. So it's bound by INSERT performance.
Which is rage inducing when you have even just tens of millions of rows.
MSSQL'97 could do a backup/restore in a small fraction of the time. And if you just wanted to move data from Server A to Server B? You could link servers and just SELECT INTO.
Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server
#69Does anybody use PG/PLSQL? I wonder how it compares in practice with Oracle PLSQL.
As others have mentioned, they are similar but there are some gotchas. An example is hierarchical data: pgsql lacks start with/connect by. This means you have to write recursive queries using Common Table Expressions (with...as). Not a dealbreaker but it does mean some extra work.
Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL Server
#70The 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?
[deleted]