Re: PostgreSQL vs. Microsoft SQL server

From: Scott Marlowe <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: Thomas Løcke <thomas(dot)granvej6(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs. Microsoft SQL server
Date: 2010-05-02 02:19:25
Message-ID: x2udcc563d11005011919u4bb08e84tede444fb14b651aa@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Craig Ringer
<craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> wrote:
>
> I'd be looking at management, reliability, backup, integration into the
> rest of the infrastructure, product longevity, support, etc. Performance
> you can always throw hardware at.

And given the relatively high costs of a MSSQL installation, you can
throw a LOT of hardware at a PostgreSQL server.

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mike Christensen 2010-05-02 02:25:41 Am I supposed to be all scared of compound primary keys?
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2010-05-02 02:12:56 Re: PostgreSQL vs. Microsoft SQL server