3 ms·
If possible, try not to go down the "support Postgres as well" route. I was in your situation, where client wanted SQL Server since they already have the licen
by j-kidd 15y ago
If possible, try not to go down the "support Postgres as well" route.
I was in your situation, where client wanted SQL Server since they already have the license. During development, I use PostgreSQL instead, to "support Postgres as well".
At the end, roughly one-third [1] of the total development effort was spent on overcoming SQL Server's limitations, things that you would never have to think about in PostgreSQL.
So, try telling the client that they already have PostgreSQL license as well, with unlimited future upgrade.
[1] This figure was pulled from ass. The actual productivity loss could be more due to similar reasons outlined in http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3784750 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3784750
- xradionut 15y agoMaybe the requirement is Oracle or SQL Server because the client has the resources (DBA, support contracts, etc) to support those platforms in house?
- j-kidd 15y agoNot in my case, the client doesn't have the resource, and we don't have the expertise. At the end, I became somewhat of an expert in SQL Server (i.e. I know how to start SQL Profiler and read query plan), at the cost of important functionality not delivered to the client on time.