6 ms·

PostgreSQL is pretty amazing. MySQL isn't even in the same league as PostgreSQL. I'm sure MSSQL is nice, but my money is on PostgreSQL being even nicer. http:

PostgreSQL is pretty amazing. MySQL isn't even in the same league as PostgreSQL. I'm sure MSSQL is nice, but my money is on PostgreSQL being even nicer. http://www.pg-versus-ms.com/ http://www.pg-versus-ms.com/ https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2mhpwp/postgresql_vs_ms_sql_server_a_comparison_of_two/ https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/2mhpwp/postgre... MySQL is hardly a relational database, it's not quite the benchmark you're looking for.

jpgvm 11y ago
This precisely. MySQL has made headway in recent years but is still miles behind PostgreSQL. No commercial database is in the same league when it comes down to it either. Oracle has some nice stuff that PG doesn't have yet but PG is still the nicer database overall.
- cptskippy 11y ago
  What metric are you using to compare databases? It sounds like you're saying MySQL, while crap, is better than commercial databases.
  - wtetzner 11y ago
    I read it as saying Postgres is better than commercial databases.
  - jpgvm 11y ago
    Other gentleman is correct. The tier list is pretty simple. MySQL < MSSQL < Oracle < PostgreSQL. Basically PostgreSQL is king of relational databases right now.
    - ismail 11y ago
      Why?
      - ktRolster 11y ago
        Free + Fast + no weird syntax (like Oracle) + Most features (although I think Oracle replication might still be better)
        jsmeaton 11y ago
        Oracle replication usually requires Golden Gate to the best of my knowledge. Someone was telling me the other day they hacked their own system together with shell scripts (ship and restore log files using scp etc), but that's probably not something you'd want to build your business on. So yes, Oracle replication is probably better if you use Golden Gate. But Golden Gate is pretty expensive (17k per CPU?).
    - cptskippy 11y ago
      I'm still unclear under what criteria Oracle comes out on top of MSSQL. Aside from the extreme high end, I can't think of a circumstance where I'd prefer using Oracle to MSSQL.
    - lololomg 11y ago
      MSSQL < Oracle? No way. Maybe Postgre is nicer than MSSQL for you. I don't know. But Oracle? Oracle is worse than MSSQL in just about every way that matters.
TheLogothete 11y ago
That first link has been discussed many times on HN and the consensus always is that the author is extremely ignorant.
- qjighap 11y ago
  He acknowledges his crassness at the bottom. Unfortunately, sometimes ignorant people have a point. Native regular expression support is a big deal, if it balances towards a better platform is another question.
brobinson 11y ago
For MySQL vs PostgreSQL, I link people to this one: http://grimoire.ca/mysql/choose-something-else http://grimoire.ca/mysql/choose-something-else
cptskippy 11y ago
I'm sure MSSQL is nice, but my money is on PostgreSQL being even nicer. Having used both, I'd take that bet. MSSQL is in my opinion the best DB out there in terms of ease of use, documentation, integration, and tools. PostgreSQL is a distant second, and SQLite is probably a distant 3rd (though it's really not in the same category).
- jimktrains2 11y ago
  > documentation The pg documentation is quite through and informative. > integration Meaning? "Integration" in and of itself is meaningless because that depends on what we're integrating with. Rust integration? pg is much better. Some obscure windows-only business tool that most people have never heard of? well, it integrates with what they want it to (probably mssql). Some obscure BSD-only business tool that most people have never heard of? well, it integrates with what they want it to (probably pg or mysql). > tools Again, meaningless unless you discuss what the actual differences are. Being able to be used on BSD makes pg infinitely superior in terms of tooling for my cost function.
  - jamespo 11y ago
    Tell me of these BSD-only business tools
- mozumder 11y ago
  Does MS-SQL have anything like PostGres' Bidirectional replication? Also, Postgres is missing multiple result sets, which Sql Server seems to have, right?
  - dsp1234 11y ago
    Does MS-SQL have anything like PostGres' Bidirectional replication? Yes. https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms151196.aspx https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms151196.aspx https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms151855.aspx https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms151855.aspx
brazzledazzle 11y ago
Microsoft's HA and replication user experience is light years ahead of PostgreSQL's from an operations perspective last time I checked.
Grazester 11y ago
What a ridiculous statement to make!
sqldba 11y ago
SS is more advanced than PG out of the box. Built in scalability and HA; far more reliable point in time backup/restore; PG even only had a plan cache added recently (the past year or so?) Then you have full text search, built in columnstore, in memory tables, native procedures. That's not counting all the non engine stuff. There is no adequate free software equivalent to reporting services or analysis services. Sorry PG isn't even close. PG is no doubt extremely important and the best of the free software pack. And you will pay your life to MS for adequate licensing. But there really is no comparison. MySQL on the other hand is a flat out joke.
- adwf 11y ago
  > Then you have full text search, built in columnstore, in memory tables, native procedures. Err, Postgres has full text search, columnstores and native procedures. Memory tables is slightly different, but doable. It's an open source project with extensions, you can't just classify it by the core.
  - philliphaydon 11y ago
    Lets not forget proper JSONB support. Oh god it's the most amazing thing to ever happen to a relational database.
- olavgg 11y ago
  > far more reliable point in time backup/restore; Hmmm. I use ZFS snapshots for backup of my PostgreSQL instances. It's faster, as reliable as it can be, and I can run a full backup every fifth minute and keep the snapshot history on a database that weights 2TB.
- Jweb_Guru 11y ago
  > PG even only had a plan cache added recently (the past year or so?) What? You have no idea what you're talking about. > you have full text search, built in columnstore, in memory tables, native procedures. Postgres has all of these (column stores only available as extensions). I don't think you're very familiar with Postgres.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

jpgvm 11y ago

This precisely. MySQL has made headway in recent years but is still miles behind PostgreSQL. No commercial database is in the same league when it comes down to it either. Oracle has some nice stuff that PG doesn't have yet but PG is still the nicer database overall.

cptskippy 11y ago
What metric are you using to compare databases? It sounds like you're saying MySQL, while crap, is better than commercial databases.
- wtetzner 11y ago
  I read it as saying Postgres is better than commercial databases.
- jpgvm 11y ago
  Other gentleman is correct. The tier list is pretty simple. MySQL < MSSQL < Oracle < PostgreSQL. Basically PostgreSQL is king of relational databases right now.
  - ismail 11y ago
    Why?
    - ktRolster 11y ago
      Free + Fast + no weird syntax (like Oracle) + Most features (although I think Oracle replication might still be better)
      - jsmeaton 11y ago
        Oracle replication usually requires Golden Gate to the best of my knowledge. Someone was telling me the other day they hacked their own system together with shell scripts (ship and restore log files using scp etc), but that's probably not something you'd want to build your business on. So yes, Oracle replication is probably better if you use Golden Gate. But Golden Gate is pretty expensive (17k per CPU?).
  - cptskippy 11y ago
    I'm still unclear under what criteria Oracle comes out on top of MSSQL. Aside from the extreme high end, I can't think of a circumstance where I'd prefer using Oracle to MSSQL.
  - lololomg 11y ago
    MSSQL < Oracle? No way. Maybe Postgre is nicer than MSSQL for you. I don't know. But Oracle? Oracle is worse than MSSQL in just about every way that matters.

TheLogothete 11y ago

That first link has been discussed many times on HN and the consensus always is that the author is extremely ignorant.

qjighap 11y ago
He acknowledges his crassness at the bottom. Unfortunately, sometimes ignorant people have a point. Native regular expression support is a big deal, if it balances towards a better platform is another question.

brobinson 11y ago

For MySQL vs PostgreSQL, I link people to this one: http://grimoire.ca/mysql/choose-something-else http://grimoire.ca/mysql/choose-something-else

cptskippy 11y ago

I'm sure MSSQL is nice, but my money is on PostgreSQL being even nicer. Having used both, I'd take that bet. MSSQL is in my opinion the best DB out there in terms of ease of use, documentation, integration, and tools. PostgreSQL is a distant second, and SQLite is probably a distant 3rd (though it's really not in the same category).

jimktrains2 11y ago
> documentation The pg documentation is quite through and informative. > integration Meaning? "Integration" in and of itself is meaningless because that depends on what we're integrating with. Rust integration? pg is much better. Some obscure windows-only business tool that most people have never heard of? well, it integrates with what they want it to (probably mssql). Some obscure BSD-only business tool that most people have never heard of? well, it integrates with what they want it to (probably pg or mysql). > tools Again, meaningless unless you discuss what the actual differences are. Being able to be used on BSD makes pg infinitely superior in terms of tooling for my cost function.
- jamespo 11y ago
  Tell me of these BSD-only business tools
mozumder 11y ago
Does MS-SQL have anything like PostGres' Bidirectional replication? Also, Postgres is missing multiple result sets, which Sql Server seems to have, right?
- dsp1234 11y ago
  Does MS-SQL have anything like PostGres' Bidirectional replication? Yes. https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms151196.aspx https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms151196.aspx https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms151855.aspx https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms151855.aspx

brazzledazzle 11y ago

Microsoft's HA and replication user experience is light years ahead of PostgreSQL's from an operations perspective last time I checked.

Grazester 11y ago

What a ridiculous statement to make!

sqldba 11y ago

SS is more advanced than PG out of the box. Built in scalability and HA; far more reliable point in time backup/restore; PG even only had a plan cache added recently (the past year or so?) Then you have full text search, built in columnstore, in memory tables, native procedures. That's not counting all the non engine stuff. There is no adequate free software equivalent to reporting services or analysis services. Sorry PG isn't even close. PG is no doubt extremely important and the best of the free software pack. And you will pay your life to MS for adequate licensing. But there really is no comparison. MySQL on the other hand is a flat out joke.

adwf 11y ago
> Then you have full text search, built in columnstore, in memory tables, native procedures. Err, Postgres has full text search, columnstores and native procedures. Memory tables is slightly different, but doable. It's an open source project with extensions, you can't just classify it by the core.
- philliphaydon 11y ago
  Lets not forget proper JSONB support. Oh god it's the most amazing thing to ever happen to a relational database.
olavgg 11y ago
> far more reliable point in time backup/restore; Hmmm. I use ZFS snapshots for backup of my PostgreSQL instances. It's faster, as reliable as it can be, and I can run a full backup every fifth minute and keep the snapshot history on a database that weights 2TB.
Jweb_Guru 11y ago
> PG even only had a plan cache added recently (the past year or so?) What? You have no idea what you're talking about. > you have full text search, built in columnstore, in memory tables, native procedures. Postgres has all of these (column stores only available as extensions). I don't think you're very familiar with Postgres.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]