- Interesting article on SQL Server vs Postgres (redmondmag.com/Articles/202...) I think it's an honest attempt, but it doesn't in my eyes make a very good case for SQL Server, and has a few errors. 🧵
- "SQL dumps require all operations to pass through the transaction log" - no really sure what this means, in the context of Postgres. Reading data does not write it to WAL. It gets loaded into shared_buffers, perhaps that's what they mean?
- Nice to see they are using PostGIS. Definitely best in class.
- "An interesting design difference is that SQL Server caches execution plans, while MySQL and PostgreSQL do not." Postgres most definitely does. It has its tradeoffs, of course, but overall works well.
- "[SQL Server] features like the query store and robust query execution statistics allow DBAs and developers to analyze performance issues quickly." Postgres does have pg_stat_statements. But I've not used SQL Server in a while, so it's details may be better.Mar 25, 2025 12:40
- (backups) "Still, it's complex to implement and configure" Really only true if you try to roll your own Postgres solution Which you should not! Just use pgBackRest.
- Overall, an interesting article, and happy to see people using and contrasting some very different database systems. But yegods those SQL Server prices are INSANE! :)
