Re: Postgres for SQL Server users

Tony,

On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 10:35 PM Tony Shelver <tshelver(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> I have to agree on the geospatial (GIS) features.
> I converted from SQL Server to Postgresql for our extended tracking
> database. The SS geospatial feature set doesn't seem nearly as robust or
> complete or perfoirmant as that supplied by PostGIS.
> The PostGIS ecosystem of open source / 3rd party tools is also far bigger,
> for anything to do with mapping. Openstreetmaps.org stores their world
> dataset on Postgresql / PostGIS, and there a ton of mostly open
> source-based tools and organizations that work with it or any other PostGIS
> data to provide a complete GIS solution.
>
> My first sS implementation had me backing out of storing geographic points
> in the relevant SQL Server datatype as the performance hit during loading
> was just too big. Doing the same thing in Postgresql / PostGIS is nardly
> noticeable.
>
> Another feature in Postgres is that you are not restricted to just plpgsql
> as an internal procedural language.
>
> I am not an expert, but it also seems far easier to create, install and
> work with major extensions to Postgresql than SQL Server. I found
> installing the GIS featureset in SS to be a bit of a pain back oin the
> day..
>

GIS is a good feature but it's a niche feature, so while I'll mention it
with extensions I am looking for more general-purpose comparisons and areas
where Postgres is as-good or better than SQL Server.

Thanks,

Igal