2 ms·

I definitely think they're great picks but I don't think the statement is making a particularly strong or interesting claim. I think it's equally true with basi

I definitely think they're great picks but I don't think the statement is making a particularly strong or interesting claim. I think it's equally true with basically any RDBMS in place of PostgreSQL. MySQL + Redis? Absolutely you'd be fine, tons of high-performance sites do this, probably more than use PostgreSQL. SQL Server + Redis? Still fine; you're Stack Overflow. Oracle + Redis? Weird choice but you'll still be fine. Also most companies probably don't need the Redis. So... what are we saying here, exactly? Are we saying that you don't need a no-SQL database, and that just SQL is enough with some Redis frosting on the cake to taste? I agree with that, but now we're not really talking about PostgreSQL any more, we're just debating SQL vs. no-SQL.

fastball 4y ago
Well what I'm saying here is that SQL is great and sometimes it's genuinely helpful to have a much faster key-value store in a variety of scenarios. That's basically all you need. From there, it's PostgreSQL and Redis specifically because Postgres is the best SQL database and Redis is the best high-performance KV store.