On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 8:53 AM, vinny <vinny@xs4all.nl> wrote: > It sounds more like a microsoft project to prove SQL-Server can be used on > linux in production, > than an actual case study. Especially the bit about "an immense reduction in > database maintenance requirements". > SQL-Server requiring less maintenance than PostgreSQL? What where they > doing? > > Anyway, it'll be interesting to see how their new setup holds out, maybe we > can learn something from it.
Without any actual numbers, facts and numbers, it is hard to make an opinion about something. Especially, there is no way to know if something wrong has been done with Postgres just by looking at this post, particularly if there have been misconfigurations. So based only on this information provided here this is just magic powder in the eyes.
Additionally there are areas where I would expect SQL Server to in fact require less database maintenance and some areas where it is the clearly correct choice in a given environment.
However.... Unless you have a vast amount of in-house experience with both I seriously doubt that you will see a reduction in database administration load from switching even in those cases. Now, if your database team are SQL Server gurus who were trying out PostgreSQL, then yeah I could imagine it.