2 ms·
> Tooling and speed. That's too vague to be of any use. What tooling? What benchmarks? > I can vouch for the quality of SQL Server's tooling – SSMS is very ni
by excursionist 7y ago
> Tooling and speed.
That's too vague to be of any use. What tooling? What benchmarks?
> I can vouch for the quality of SQL Server's tooling – SSMS is very nicely integrated with SQL Server.
The fact that you like SSMS doesn't really say anything about tooling for PostgreSQL. I find the quality of PostgreSQL tooling great.
There is certainly plenty of reason to believe PostgreSQL is superior to MS SQL [1]. I don't agree with everything in the referenced article, but your claim of MS SQL being far superior is, so far, completely unsubstantiated.
[1] https://www.pg-versus-ms.com/ https://www.pg-versus-ms.com/
- ripley12 7y agoYou’re a little combative, huh? As I’m sure you’re aware, publishing benchmarks of commercial RDBMSs is usually prohibited - I’m just passing on what I’ve heard from an expert about query optimizers.
- excursionist 7y ago> You’re a little combative, huh? Interpreting the questioning of your grand claims as combative should tell you something about your own attitude. > As I’m sure you’re aware, publishing benchmarks of commercial RDBMSs is usually prohibited I only know that MS and Oracle prohibit publishing such benchmarks - and that's yet another reason not to use them.