Platform comparison ...

"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 in production,
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 Linux BSD...

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 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 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

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 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 :-)

I have not, compared mysql at all.