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

81–90 of 106 posts

Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL

#81

Post by WorldWideWayne »

mirsadm wrote: post #76
general_failure wrote: post #27

I scrolled to a random page. It was totally absurd, stopped right there. "Crucially, because open-source software tends to be written by people who care deeply about its quality (often because they have a direct personal stake in ensuring that the software works as well as possible), it is often of the very highest standard (PostgreSQL, Linux, MySQL, XBMC, Hadoop, Android, VLC, Neo4JS, Redis, 7Zip, FreeBSD, golang, P…

As someone that uses PostgreSQL, would you care to elaborate on the topic? I haven't used MS SQL Server so maybe if you can actually provide some useful information we can start a discussion and learn something new.

I think many IT departments choose MSSQL for the same reason they choose Windows - it's an easy to setup system with good tools and lots of commercial support. MSSQL also integrates very tightly with Windows and you can use single-sign-on via Windows authentication with no setup.

The administration GUI included with SQL Server (called SQL Server Management Studio/SSMS) is very robust and whenever I look, I always see other people asking around for something as good as SSMS for other RDBMS. If you use Unix you might prefer your command line tools, but a lot folks would rather obviously use a GUI.

For developers, I haven't found anything better than SQL Server Data Tools (SSDT) which is a set of extensions for Visual Studio that let you design and develop a SQL Server database. It creates version migration scripts, diffs database schemas and data, integrates with git and other source control providers and generates DML scripts among other things.

Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL

#82

Post by x0x0 »

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"

that's a deliberately obtuse response formed by avoiding reading the 478 words of supporting detail immediately following. Certainly there exist csvs mssql will import. But I've run into problems with nested quoting, commas inside fields, and unicode. I'm apparently far from the only one. So I think it's hardly hyperbole to say mssql doesn't support csv.

Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL

#85

Post by tracker1 »

The author mentions no understanding N'V' etc, early on, then rants about MS's support for Unicode...

Also, IMHO one of the single biggest shortcomings from PostgreSQL is that there's still no baked in solution for replication with any kind of either multi-master or hot failover. If PostgreSQL supported this (in the box) as well as MongoDB was, along with having PL/v8 support easier to install, it'd be my db of choice.

MS-SQL does have a lot of shortcomings compared to PostgreSQL from a developer perspective, but from being able to easily install and administrate one over the other, I think MS-SQL has a significant lead here.

As long as replication/sharding are bolt-on solutions for PostgreSQL, it really isn't an option for a lot of projects.

Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL

#86

Post by swasheck »

Hm. I love postgres and find many of its features to be intriguing and exciting. I work with MS SQL Server professionally and find many of the things it does to be excellent as well. The unfortunate thing about this piece is that much of it is actually Op-Ed and is based on the author's preference (e.g. cascading drop). The second section is nearly unreadable as it's full of FUD and smear.

Yes, there are things that PG does better than MSSQL. Yes, there are things that MSSQL does better than PG. It sucks that we still have to debate it based on a smear piece from someone with an agenda.

Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL

#87

Post by tracker1 »

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…

EnterpriseDB seems to be the corporate benefactor behind PostgreSQL, and is run by what looks to be a lot of former Redhat guys. There's definitely commercial support out there.

As a programmer, I would love to use PostgreSQL everywhere over all the options you mention... Mongo has a pretty decent replication/failover setup, better than MS-SQL imho, and MS-SQL being a close second... administering PostgreSQL for high availability seems like an exercise in frustration, with lots of after-thought bolted on solutions.

I think by the time we see either 9.6 or so, or 10.0 (depending on how versioning goes), with PL/v8 and sane replication/failover solution in the box, it'll become my db of choice.

Most of what I use MongoDB for today can be done almost as nicely in PostgreSQL, and the latter can do a lot the former would trip on.

Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL

#88

Post by tracker1 »

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #24
keithwarren wrote: post #11

There is so much here, it is so verbose...so religious. There is the appearance of facts, but mostly it is bias by omission. Take for example the CSV complaints..."MS SQL Server can neither import nor export CSV. Most people don't believe me when I tell them this". This is just false, patently and obviously false. BCP and SSIS, both part of SQL Server have excellent support for importing and exporting flat files. I d…

They likely should have said "standards compliant CSV." I've worked a lot with CSV (too much!) and let me tell you Microsoft's tools are simply awful at following the CSV standard. Excel in particular drives me up the will. Plus the automatic inferences in Excel break all kind of things. Have a six digit number? Randomly a date. Have a UPC? Going to corrupt it in numerous ways (leading zero stripping, converting to s…

I've gotten into using node.js with the mssql module for handling csv or xml in a stream... it does work really well, and the compatibility is pretty smooth.

I wish that line-item JSON were more popular, it's more expressive than csv, the tooling (programatic) seems to be a bit better, and much less verbose than equivalent XML, which I always had a problem with, as mapping XML to/from an object model is always more painful by comparison.

line-item utf-8 json+gz work really well for import/export data...

Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL

#89

Post by tracker1 »

jamhan wrote: post #70

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.

Now setup replication and a solution for hot/fast failover to a new master...

Not having an in the box solution for this is the single biggest thing keeping me off of PostgreSQL...

Re: PostgreSQL vs. MS SQL

#90

Post by sitharus »

tracker1 wrote: post #85

The author mentions no understanding N'V' etc, early on, then rants about MS's support for Unicode... Also, IMHO one of the single biggest shortcomings from PostgreSQL is that there's still no baked in solution for replication with any kind of either multi-master or hot failover. If PostgreSQL supported this (in the box) as well as MongoDB was, along with having PL/v8 support easier to install, it'd be my db of choic…

Fortunately Postgres is getting a lot more replication love. You can already do a lot with the warm-standby and FDWs to do basic sharding, and they're rolling in a lot more to 9.4 and 9.5. EnterpriseDB are the place to look for that to be made in to a full product.

Someday soon Postgres will have materialised views that auto update :)

However, as someone who works with MSSQL daily they're still not comparable. I'd say Postgres is much nicer in development and I'd use it for my projects, but MSSQL has much more scalability without developer intervention.

Post reply on HN