4 ms·

They are more advanced in many levels, a bit behind on the dev friendliness side (postgres is kind there), that's true. However I manage roughly 2000 instances

They are more advanced in many levels, a bit behind on the dev friendliness side (postgres is kind there), that's true. However I manage roughly 2000 instances of commercial databases. I'd say maybe a 10th could not be hosted on postgres. It gives postgres a huge disruption potential and the management, in all the big firms I know, is actively looking at it.

manigandham 8y ago
Yes, PG has many more usability features. Simple things like UPSERT make UX improvements if you don't need the advanced capabilities of MSSQL. I'm sure PG can take on more of the standard RDBMS workloads today but I don't think that's really making a big dent on SQL Server as the bulk of their revenue comes from the serious enterprise scenarios.
- grumpydba 8y ago
  > I don't think that's really making a big dent on SQL Server as the bulk of their revenue comes from the serious enterprise scenarios. I'd say postgres can take 90% of the revenues. I've worked in 3 of the top 10 european banks. Most of the SQL Server instances do not even need partitioning, for example. Let alone always on, hekaton and so forth. People mostly buy peace of mind. Until they are charged millions and start questioning the stupid expensive bills saying "do we need that ?" Really I have all the metrics to back this up: CPU usage/Availability requirements/data size... It is literally my job to collect those. Also, proper window support, great postgis, great json support, open source ecosystem support are not simple and huge cost savers.
  - manigandham 8y ago
    Revenue for what? Postgres is free. If you mean the licensing and support from commercial distributions and vendors then, as you already recognize, these decisions will fall to which vendor they trust more. That will usually end up being Microsoft.
    - grumpydba 8y ago
      You do not trust a vendor who rips you off.
      - manigandham 8y ago
        It's not the fault of the vendor if you decide to buy their product. If you didn't need the product features then you shouldn't buy it but enterprise deals are rarely about the absolute price.
        grumpydba 8y ago
        Indeed. And as I said this reasoning might eat 90% of sql server's revenue.
    - jeltz 8y ago
      Proffesional PostgreSQL support is not free, and the banks would most likely buy support from some company just like they currently support for SQL Server.
      - manigandham 8y ago
        >>> "If you mean the licensing and support from commercial distributions and vendors then, as you already recognize, these decisions will fall to which vendor they trust more." Enterprises are more than just banks, and vendor relationships matter. They're not fungible and are rarely based on price.

manigandham 8y ago

Yes, PG has many more usability features. Simple things like UPSERT make UX improvements if you don't need the advanced capabilities of MSSQL. I'm sure PG can take on more of the standard RDBMS workloads today but I don't think that's really making a big dent on SQL Server as the bulk of their revenue comes from the serious enterprise scenarios.

grumpydba 8y ago
> I don't think that's really making a big dent on SQL Server as the bulk of their revenue comes from the serious enterprise scenarios. I'd say postgres can take 90% of the revenues. I've worked in 3 of the top 10 european banks. Most of the SQL Server instances do not even need partitioning, for example. Let alone always on, hekaton and so forth. People mostly buy peace of mind. Until they are charged millions and start questioning the stupid expensive bills saying "do we need that ?" Really I have all the metrics to back this up: CPU usage/Availability requirements/data size... It is literally my job to collect those. Also, proper window support, great postgis, great json support, open source ecosystem support are not simple and huge cost savers.
- manigandham 8y ago
  Revenue for what? Postgres is free. If you mean the licensing and support from commercial distributions and vendors then, as you already recognize, these decisions will fall to which vendor they trust more. That will usually end up being Microsoft.
  - grumpydba 8y ago
    You do not trust a vendor who rips you off.
    - manigandham 8y ago
      It's not the fault of the vendor if you decide to buy their product. If you didn't need the product features then you shouldn't buy it but enterprise deals are rarely about the absolute price.
      - grumpydba 8y ago
        Indeed. And as I said this reasoning might eat 90% of sql server's revenue.
  - jeltz 8y ago
    Proffesional PostgreSQL support is not free, and the banks would most likely buy support from some company just like they currently support for SQL Server.
    - manigandham 8y ago
      >>> "If you mean the licensing and support from commercial distributions and vendors then, as you already recognize, these decisions will fall to which vendor they trust more." Enterprises are more than just banks, and vendor relationships matter. They're not fungible and are rarely based on price.