Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Can you elaborate on what kinds of things fill the 40% difference between PG and MSSQL?

SQL Server is well ahead of PG in query parallelisation and complex replication topologies, even as of PG 10.1. SQL Server is also ahead in change data capture, but PG 10 narrowed that gap. Managing a large user base is easier on SQL Server. If you have those use cases it is well worth the money.

If I need to do something clever with the contents of the table, SQL Server's embedded R is very good.

Having used both PostgreSQL and SQL Server,

Well indeed, most people only use a subset of their DB's full feature set, but it will be a different subset for each person :-) I don't really use GUI tools so I can't comment on that but I've heard that pgAdmin 4 is awful.



Thank you, that's the kind of answer I was looking for. Those are indeed not things I've worked with.

> I've heard that pgAdmin 4 is awful.

I've heard the same. I wasn't a fan of pgAdmin 3 either, so I've stuck with the psql command line.


> I've heard the same. I wasn't a fan of pgAdmin 3 either, so I've stuck with the psql command line.

In case you haven't heard of it, I highly highly recommend pgcli[1] if anyone reading this is doing the same as you and me but hasn't highly customized their psql shell yet. It's one of those tools I wish I had known about earlier.

1. https://www.pgcli.com/


Thank you, that's the kind of answer I was looking for

I love that in the HN community we can have these conversations without it descending into a platform war :-)

I did alot of Oracle up to SQL Server 2012 then just didn't need it any more, SQL Server + PG 9 and now 10 hit all my use cases for a tiny fraction of the cost. Now I wonder why so many people still pay so much for it.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: