Thread: Platform comparison ...
Hello Group, I need your help, in putting together a list of comparisons, and good solid technical reasons, to why to usePostgreSQL over using Microsoft SQL Server. Right now, we are using PostgreSQL for a back-end for some of our web stuff. A couple of our developers, which are Microsoft VB developers, are complaining about not being able to use proprietaryMS stuff with PostgreSQL. I have told them to use standard SQL92 compliant programming techniques, and all willwork just fine. They just don't seem to understand why a person wouldn't use SQL Server. If I could put together alist of good solid technical arguments, (Performance, Support, Reliability, ETC.), as to why PostgreSQL is better, I thinkI can make a good case in keeping PostreSQL. I just don't have any SQL Server experience to compare with. If any ofyou, who have SQL Server experience could send me good technical comparisons of SQL Server vs PostgreSQL, I would greatlyappreciate it. Thanks in advance, Dale Anderson.
"Dale Anderson" <danderso@crystalsugar.com> writes: > Hello Group, [snip: why would PG be "better" than MSSQL?] "Better" isn't meaningful except in the context of the problem you're trying to solve. There will be some problems where PG is right, some where MSSQL works better, and some where neither is the "best" choice. Reasons you might prefer PG: * No licensing costs, period * Runs on free operating systems * Runs on Unix, if you prefer that as a server environment * Object-relational technology * Extensibility (not only functions, but datatypes, index types, etc) * Open Source (no vendor lockin) Reasons you might prefer MSSQL: * Need for MS extensions * Easier setup (perhaps) for non-DBA/sysadmin types * Management's desire for "single-source" * Performance advantages for some workloads * Windows server environment (PG runs on Windows, but only through a Unix emulation layer--I personally wouldn't run it inproduction, but then again I wouldn't run Windows in production:) Both offer commercial support, ACID compliance, stored procedures/functions, and the other stuff that people expect from a "real" database. Hope this helps... -Doug -- Doug McNaught Wireboard Industries http://www.wireboard.com/ Custom software development, systems and network consulting. Java PostgreSQL Enhydra Python Zope Perl Apache LinuxBSD...
Le Lundi 18 Mars 2002 22:53, Dale Anderson a écrit : > A couple of our developers, which are Microsoft VB developers, are > complaining about not being able to use proprietary MS stuff with > PostgreSQL. Dear Dale, Maybe you could consider using pgAdmin2 (http://pgadmin.postgresql.org), which displays all database objects (tables, views, functions, triggers, rules, etc...) in a nice Window$ interface. An MS SQL Server migration wizard is also included. Historically, several pgAdmin2 developpers come from an microsoft-oracle background and wanted to get out of the matrix. The most visible difference between MS SQL Server and PostgreSQL is that MS SQL Server can be programmed in VB, whereas PostgreSQL supports serveral server-side languages : PLpgSQL, PLperl, PLpython, even C... People usually underestimate the power of server-side scripting. Oracle does not and sell each server-side programming "cartridge" separately. PostgreSQL provides them for free. Furthermore, pgAdmin2 is provided with an abstraction layer called pgSchema, which gives access to most database objects through an OCX technology. pgSchema can be used in any VB project very easilly. Therefore, in my humble opinion, PostgreSQL provides a very reliable solution for both client-side (VB) and server-side (PostgreSQL) programming needs. The power of PostgreSQL is to be able to do things smartly because we offer a complete development environment. The only thing your developpers need is to install pgAdmin2 and start learning a server-side language (like PLpgSQL which is very easy). There is probably a lot of client-code in you applications to migrate server-side. PostgreSQL is also a great community of developpers. For help, the best place are pgsql-admin, pgsql-general and pgadmin-hackers mailing lists. Best regards, Jean-Michel POURE
Dale Anderson wrote: > > Hello Group, > I need your help, in putting together a list of comparisons, and good solid technical reasons, to why to use PostgreSQLover using Microsoft SQL Server. Right now, we are using PostgreSQL for a back-end for some of our web stuff. A couple of our developers, which are Microsoft VB developers, are complaining about not being able to use proprietaryMS stuff with PostgreSQL. I have told them to use standard SQL92 compliant programming techniques, and all willwork just fine. They just don't seem to understand why a person wouldn't use SQL Server. If I could put together alist of good solid technical arguments, (Performance, Support, Reliability, ETC.), as to why PostgreSQL is better, I thinkI can make a good case in keeping PostreSQL. I just don't have any SQL Server experience to compare with. If any ofyou, who have SQL Server experience could send me good technical comparisons of SQL Server vs PostgreSQL, I would greatlyappreciate it. I have worked with MSSQL, Oracle, Sybase, MySQL, and PostgreSQL, I totally understand what you are going through. MSSQL has a huge advantage in the Windows environment in that the whole environment is controlled by the vendor that sells one of the SQL technologies. This is not to be under estimated. Microsoft has a way of making it difficult for non-micrsoft technologies. That being said, I can come up with a few reasons to use PostgreSQL over MSSQL. Cost: I worked on a DICOM system, which used a web server and a database, a number of years ago. The cost of Windows NT and SQL licenses was about $8000. By rewiring the project using PostgreSQL and Apache, we were able to sell the system for slightly less, but make more money. Preservation of development work: My biggest concern with using ANY Microsoft product is the routine changes that occur in the core APIs. Once you are on the Microsoft treadmill, it is very difficult to get off. Every release there is some subtle change that will break something. Stability: Say what you will, and believe what you want. MS Windows NT/2K/XP are not production ready operating systems. There are serious issues with uptime and performance. PostgreSQL running on Linux or FreeBSD will be more reliable than anything running on any version of Windows.
On Tue, 2002-03-19 at 15:52, mlw wrote: > Dale Anderson wrote: > > > > Hello Group, > > I need your help, in putting together a list of comparisons, and good solid technical reasons, to why to use PostgreSQL over using Microsoft SQL Server. Right now, we are using PostgreSQL for a back-end for some of our web stuff. A couple of our developers, which are Microsoft VB developers, are complaining about not being able to use proprietary MS stuff with PostgreSQL. I have told them to use standard SQL92 compliant programming techniques, and all will work just fine. They just don't seem to understand why a person wouldn't use SQL Server. If I could put together a list of good solid technical arguments, (Performance, Support, Reliability, ETC.), as to why PostgreSQL is better, I think I can make a good case in keeping PostreSQL. I just don't have any SQL Server experience to compare with. If any of you, who have SQL Server experience could send me good technical comparisons of SQL Server vs PostgreSQL, I would greatly appreciate it. > > I have worked with MSSQL, Oracle, Sybase, MySQL, and PostgreSQL, I totally > understand what you are going through. > > MSSQL has Hi! I'm sure I'm not the only one interested in seeing your opinion regarding Oracle vs. pg and Sybase vs. pg. (But please not another mysql flamewar here :-) Tx and greets -- vbi
Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote: > > On Tue, 2002-03-19 at 15:52, mlw wrote: > > Dale Anderson wrote: > > > > > > Hello Group, > > > I need your help, in putting together a list of comparisons, and good solid technical reasons, to why to use PostgreSQLover using Microsoft SQL Server. Right now, we are using PostgreSQL for a back-end for some of our web stuff. A couple of our developers, which are Microsoft VB developers, are complaining about not being able to use proprietaryMS stuff with PostgreSQL. I have told them to use standard SQL92 compliant programming techniques, and all willwork just fine. They just don't seem to understand why a person wouldn't use SQL Server. If I could put together alist of good solid technical arguments, (Performance, Support, Reliability, ETC.), as to why PostgreSQL is better, I thinkI can make a good case in keeping PostreSQL. I just don't have any SQL Server experience to compare with. If any ofyou, who have SQL Server experience could send me good technical comparisons of SQL Server vs PostgreSQL, I would greatlyappreciate it. > > > > I have worked with MSSQL, Oracle, Sybase, MySQL, and PostgreSQL, I totally > > understand what you are going through. > > > > MSSQL has > > Hi! > > I'm sure I'm not the only one interested in seeing your opinion > regarding Oracle vs. pg and Sybase vs. pg. (But please not another mysql > flamewar here :-) I have not, compared mysql at all.
On Tue, 2002-03-19 at 15:52, mlw wrote: > Dale Anderson wrote: > > > > Hello Group, > > I need your help, in putting together a list of comparisons, and good solid technical reasons, to why to use PostgreSQLover using Microsoft SQL Server. Right now, we are using PostgreSQL for a back-end for some of our web stuff. A couple of our developers, which are Microsoft VB developers, are complaining about not being able to use proprietaryMS stuff with PostgreSQL. I have told them to use standard SQL92 compliant programming techniques, and all willwork just fine. They just don't seem to understand why a person wouldn't use SQL Server. If I could put together alist of good solid technical arguments, (Performance, Support, Reliability, ETC.), as to why PostgreSQL is better, I thinkI can make a good case in keeping PostreSQL. I just don't have any SQL Server experience to compare with. If any ofyou, who have SQL Server experience could send me good technical comparisons of SQL Server vs PostgreSQL, I would greatlyappreciate it. > > I have worked with MSSQL, Oracle, Sybase, MySQL, and PostgreSQL, I totally > understand what you are going through. > > MSSQL has Hi! I'm sure I'm not the only one interested in seeing your opinion regarding Oracle vs. pg and Sybase vs. pg. (But please not another mysql flamewar here :-) Tx and greets -- vbi