Re: PostgreSQL vs. Microsoft SQL server

On Sat, 2010-05-01 at 20:47 +0200, Thomas Løcke wrote:

-->Anybody know of any recent comparisons made between the two?

I'm in the process of buying a new telephony related software suite,
and I'm getting mixed advice. Some say that MSSQL is _much_
better/faster than PostgreSQL, and others say the opposite.
-->
-->No shocker there. Their salesmen out for a sale, having no under standing how to compare DB's .
-->

sales-people all bang on about MSSQL being the superior choice, and
PostgreSQL being a "toy compared to the Microsoft RDBMS".
-->I've been using MSSQL from 7.0 to MSSQL 2008. Been using Postgresql as of 8.2 and think very highly of it.

The administrative overhead of PG IMHO is far less, hardware requirements are lower, easier to develop in and against.

MSSQL has lots of MS tools you can use which all cost lots of money. Hardware requirements far steeper, primary because the OS hardware requirements are higher.

My first choice is PG
-->
-->

The tech
people though are divided into three groups: One group says the two
systems are more or less equal, another group who says the Microsoft
database is superior and finally a group who speaks highly of
PostgreSQL.
-->
-->To say PG is superior to MSSQL and vice versus is a loaded argument. What is the bases of the comparison.
-->
-->Comparing the two strictly as DB to DB they are equal. Both support large section of SQL standard, they both have excellent track records not corrupting data, both do WAL, both scale up to thousands of transactions per second. both are ACID
-->
-->But the equality between the 2 stops there and each product has pluses and Minus.
-->
-->wiki has some comparison info
-->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_relational_database_management_systems
-->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_database_tools
-->
-->

I've not been able to convince them to send me some actual benchmark numbers, which actually should turn on quite a few alarms, come to think about it. :o) -->
-->Benchmarking is an important piece but should not be a deciding factor.
-->
-->Benchmarks on DB's are miss leading, because the way each may execute a given set of queries can and will result in drastically different numbers.
-->
-->Tweaking a DB and the queries is a time consuming process and normally results in rewriting the queries, add indexes, changing configurations or even changing table layouts.
-->
-->My experience shows both are very fast if properly configured and the developers understands how a specific DB works to properly write queries. Seen more than once a DB taken to its knees because poorly written SQL statements or design . Performance and General mailing list are packed with such examples.
-->

Maybe you guys are aware of some recent generic tests/comparisons between the two systems? -->
-->General tests and comparisons are worthless.

This list is packed with examples as are other DB mailing list where users pick apart benchmarks because the Tester missed some setting, or some other arcane trick that is Database specific.

-->
-->

All legitimate Magwerks Corporation quotations are sent in a .PDF file attachment with a unique ID number generated by our proprietary quotation system. Quotations received via any other form of communication will not be honored.

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail, including attachments, may contain legally privileged, confidential or other information proprietary to Magwerks Corporation and is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it addresses. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or authorized agent, the reader is hereby notified that any unauthorized viewing, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by replying to this message and destroy all occurrences of this e-mail immediately.
Thank you.