PostgreSQL Reviews

We have a use case for the solution which was related to a website that we developed for a Spanish energy line transmission company. The company used to face a lot of legal issues in Brazil. We had created a SaaS product that helped them to monitor the Brazilian legal parameters. The company had used the product only for two years and then discontinued it.

The company also faced many internal problems where they had to urge the lawyers to get used to the SaaS products. The lawyers wanted to input information into another system and this is where we used PostgreSQL.

PostgreSQL has complete SQL dialects and is useful for writing sophisticated and complex queries. We have experience with Oracle database. My partner is experienced in DDA and he writes sophisticated SQL queries. The solution helps to get the job done in the best possible way.

In today’s age, most developers do not have strong SQL knowledge or language command. They find it difficult to write even a SQL statement. These developers write cool queries which perform badly on the database end.

As DBAs, we constantly urge the developers not to write bad queries, help them learn more, and write placebo commands.

I find it difficult to get connectors on the tool. For example, .NET has only one free provider in PostgreSQL. I need to pay the provider if I need something more sophisticated features. Other languages like PHP and Java have good community support. We need community support for .NET.

I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. PostgreSQL is an open-source enterprise-grade product and is available free of cost. The tool doesn’t have a big company behind it. The solution is very well documented and you can find a lot of information from the community. The solution is a good product compared to MySQL. People have been moving away from MySQL ever since it became an Oracle product.

PostgreSQL can handle heavy loads. I follow some of the most important DBA professionals in the industry and they are using this product. This tool is a rock-solid product and the most advanced relational database software that is open source.

Some open-source solutions have a restriction on the license but there are no problems when commercial applications use the solution. You cannot use a commercial product with open-source solutions that have license restrictions.

It is a backend database for security. We dump the data, collect the database, and then analyze it using some BI tools.

The system can perform faster analysis by providing it with a lot of memory. Speed is crucial for analytics. Currently, the main reason we haven't adopted Elasticsearch is that we lack the necessary expertise to manage it.

Postgres should focus on building a stronger knowledge base. They also need to expand their integration capabilities, so more tools and resources are available to manage it. But it is more secure than MySQL.

I have been using PostgreSQL for three years.

We are a team of about 32 people, three of them are focused on software development and installations. We also collaborate with a software company that handles the software development. We then present it to the customer. Our work is primarily focused on security.

Some applications focus on MySQL, while others use Postgres. MySQL to be more is versatile. MySQL seems to have more users, tools, and applications deployed on it, which is why many people default to it over Postgres.

MySQL may have an advantage because it supports more applications and has broader compatibility.

The tool is very easy to deploy and manage. It takes one or two days to complete.

The tool is free of cost. For now, it's not about making money. But once we perfect it, we can offer it to customers willing to pay for support and other services. Most of my deployments are free.

We are primarily a service provider rather than a software developer, though we do have teams experienced in software development. We collaborate with an external provider to develop security and cybersecurity software.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

We use the product to manage large datasets. We also use it for forecasting. The product is integrated into our application to test the data.

The processes are quick. The data is arranged well. The tool is user-friendly. We are working on a Windows app. It is easy to view and analyze the data. The logs are valuable. The solution is reliable. It is a Windows-based application.

The search option is not very good. If I need to see data in a table, I must go into the table. The solution must provide filter options in the log files so that we can search for a particular range of data.

I have been using the product for four to five months.

We have not had any performance issues with the solution.

The solution is scalable. Though the data grows with time, the performance stays the same. Four to five people are using the solution in our organization. We are expecting an increase in the number of users soon. The data processed is large since we work on forecasting.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We do not use the product for web application development. The management decided to use the product. I recommend the tool to others. If the data format is okay, we will face no problem using the tool. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We often use PostgreSQL for operations monitoring because we are a manufacturing company.

We often find the solution's datetime datatype challenging.

I have been using PostgreSQL for four years and five months.

PostgreSQL is a stable solution, and we haven’t faced any performance issues.

We faced no difficulty in installing PostgreSQL.

It took us five minutes to deploy the solution.

Overall, I rate PostgreSQL an eight out of ten.

We are using it as a database to store information.

Postgres SQL is quite a good database.

The performance is good.

I have noticed that user and access management should be improved. Connection pooling should be improved. We rely on connection pooling.

Monitoring is incompatible. It is open source. To advance, you must access the internet and download and test various other tools, or develop your own tools. With Microsoft server, it is one single platform that provides you with everything, but with Postgre you have to install or check different tools to integrate with it. That's the annoyance, but it's still the way open source technology works.

I would like to see better management in PostgreSQL.

PostgreSQL is easy to scale.

We have a medium-sized company.

We don't have technical support. It is community-based. We get assistance through Github.

We have been working with Microsoft SQL.

The main difference between SQL and Postgre is that Postgre is open source. It's completely free.

It's very simple to set up.

Postgre is open source. It is almost completely free.

The community version of Postgre is basically free.

We are utilizing the database's active native security features. As a result, we currently have no need for any external security tools. We had, but we worked around it.

The advice would be to go with a managed Postgre. If you're going to install Postgre in the cloud, for example, it's better to go with a managed Postgre rather than handling everything on our own.

I would rate PostgreSQL a nine out of ten.

PostgreSQL has excellent support for many programming languages. We've been able to integrate it with Java, PHP, Perl and .NET without any issues. 

Replication is also working pretty good in a master to read only replica setup in AWS. 

We've been able to cut costs on databases over our previous solution with Microsoft SQL Server and migrate many applications into Amazon web services. Performance has been decent. 

By far the biggest limitations are in replication support. A native master to master replication option would make things much easier as we're in need of an easier method to load balance traffic with Spring Data.  

PostgreSQL is slower than MySQL with insert performance. While using COPY can make an application fast, we often use ORMs which cannot benefit from this. 

9.4 seemed to have some regressions with the query planner and multi table joins are slower than in previous versions. 

I've been using PostgreSQL for 5 years.

Finding the right configuration to balance performance and connections was a little challenging in our setup. 

We've encountered some CPU bound scalability issues with multi table joins (3-4) and the query planner seems to ignore indexes at times. 

Initially applications at my current employer used Microsoft SQL Server. The cost for licensing/maintaining windows systems was more than we liked. PostgreSQL has offered similar performance for our workloads with lower cost. 

We use it for inventory control.

We are able to use it on many servers and incur no cost impact, whereas Oracle charges you by the number of cores that are on each individual server, whether you use those cores or not.

The main value is that it is open source, which means it is free. Our organization has the initiative to go to open source to cut down on cost. Oracle costs us $6 million a year right now, which is killing us, and Postgres costs nothing. So, there is a big push to go to Postgres.

It is a great product, and it just works. 

They need to have a better graphical interface. There is a tool called pgAdmin 4 that they use, which is free. It is written in Java, and it is slow. They need to have a better product that is similar to Toad for Oracle, but, of course, it is hard to get something that's really great and free. Other than that, it is great.

I have been using this solution for three years.

It is better than Oracle. It is a great product.

It scales horizontally, so it is great. You can do whatever you want with it. We probably have 10,000 users. In terms of their role, they buy products, put them in the inventory, and distribute them.

It is being used quite heavily. The idea is to get rid of Oracle and replace Oracle with Postgres.

It doesn't have any support because it is open source. They provide you with the documentation that's free, and you get everything except help. You're on your own, which is okay. I and one other person came up to speed on this, and we're basically the subject matter experts (SMEs).

EnterpriseDB (EDB) is a company that provides technical support, but we decided not to do that.

We used Oracle. We're currently in the process of migrating from Oracle to Postgres, and we're doing it because of cost.

Postgres is a superior product, and it is free. Oracle's support is really terrible, so you're not really getting any support from Oracle.

It was very straightforward and easy. It is very well documented.

We can deploy a server in about three or four hours. We use a primary and a standby server, so we have two servers in the cluster.

My partner and I read the books and then just did it. I am on the development side. They get the new products in, and I and this other person evaluate them and learn them. We probably have three people in operations who are handling Postgres on the production side.

It is free. In terms of operating costs, it basically needs the same platform on which Oracle runs.

We evaluated EnterpriseDB (EDB) Postgres, which is a paid product, whereas Postgres is open source. We decided that it was better to go with a free product.

I would absolutely recommend this solution if you're concerned about cost. It seems easy and straightforward.

I would rate it a 10 out of 10. It is really great. It works amazingly well.

Twice now, I have been involved in the decision by a company to migrate away from MS SQL Server to Postgres. The first time, it was simply a matter of scalability. Once you approach 10 TB of data, managing it in MSSQL becomes problematic. You reach limits on performance, backup/recovery and general maintainability. The second company that I assisted in performing this migration chose Postgres due to the TCO as well as the ability to scale the databases horizontally.

The feature that I find most useful (and in fact critical) is the extensibility of Postgres. We installed the extensions that were important to us and ignored anything that wasn’t useful. This allows us to maintain a highly customized configuration that is still able to be supported and maintained by third-party vendors.

One of the key ways that Postgres has improved the functioning of our organization is by freeing up financial resources that can then be applied to upgrading existing infrastructure. A side benefit, of course, is that by bringing in another platform, we have given current staff the ability to grow their skill set and experiment with a new, feature-rich environment. This improves employee satisfaction and makes our CFO happy at the same time.

I would really like to see a more mainstream approach to support what we see as critical extensions. One example is the FDW (foreign data wrapper) for MSSQL. This extension hasn’t been updated in several releases and would benefit from an overhaul. In general, the Postgres community is not as enthusiastic about supporting integration with Windows products (MSSQL, AD, etc.) as they are about other products like Oracle, GIS and full-text searching.

I have been involved in various aspects of Postgres for approximately two years. This includes both single-node installations as well as multi-node clusters using PostgresXL.

The only issue I have ever come up against is internal support. Implementing Linux and Postgres in an environment where only Microsoft has lived has been challenging at times. Administering Postgres on Ubuntu (or any other variant) takes a far different skill set than supporting SQL Server on Windows.

As far as scalability goes, I have yet to identify the limits of Postgres. We will be looking at the newer multi-node options from 2nd Quadrant later this year.

Like any open source product, your mileage may vary. There are several VERY good third-party options for technical support. That being said, this product is not for the faint of heart or the technically unsophisticated shop.

See my answer above. We evaluated both open-source as well as proprietary solutions. Of the open-source solutions we examined, Postgres has the best track record for innovation and enhancements. While the user base is smaller than some of the more established solutions, the fact that it has been able to avoid being “acquired” by a major player is, in my opinion, a plus.

Postgres will work straight out of the box on most platforms. However like all of the database vendors in the Unix space, the ability to modify the configurations are extensive. The degree of complexity is less than Oracle or Sybase but certainly more complex than something like SQL Server. The most important thing to keep in mind is that you must understand how your operating system handles memory. The most complex part of the Postgres installation is, by far, security. I would recommend getting help before tackling the HBA configuration file.

Both times I have been involved in an initial Postgres implementation, we have handled it in-house. It isn’t too hard to implement but you do need some base tech skills including Unix. I would not recommend trying to implement it on a Windows server.

For us, the ROI was almost immediate. We saved several $100k in license costs alone. Overall, the manpower costs to support Postgres and Linux will depend on whether those skills already exist in your enterprise. If you plan to take a Postgres system live in production, I strongly encourage you to look into commercial support.

If you can, do it!