PostgreSQL Reviews

The database for the accounting systems is our primary use case for this solution. Business software is 80% of my use case in the accounting software. It's a good tool for planning. I work with financial data and the data mining aspect is very important, as I need to access the data easily. The data is the most important thing. Sometimes the software developers forget this part because they just want to save the data on the database, but they don't know how to manipulate the data. The performance of the solution is dependant on how easily and quickly you can obtain access to the data.

I can use Unity Kinematic. It's not easy but you can create a multi-tenant database in Postgres and I think it's a must-have in software development. With the database, you can provide a multi-component at the same service with the same performance, scalability, or all those things. 

PostgreSQL is limited to 32 TB in maximum table size for version 9.6 and earlier. This can be problematic for large databases. We currently don't have the multi-tenant feature and we require that with the contract integrated reassurance. To create have one tenant or more tenants, I need to implement or develop a software solution to connect with the multi-tenant, and to connect each tenant. PostgreSQL is not great for software developers, but it is adequate. For developers, databases such as Firebase and MongoDB technology are better. With PostgreSQL, all you need the database for is to save your data. This function on its own is not enough. The database and applications can become very slow. To debug you need to make the database query display information on your device. Some developers are not experienced in developing databases. This is especially difficult for junior software developers, and they often need more experience to be able to deal with that aspect.

We have been using Postgres for about 10 years. 

It is a stable database.

Because PostgreSQL is limited in regards to the amount of data it can hold in a single table, you often think it might be better to change the technology. Other than that, it is a good solution for business.

Sometimes it is not simple to resolve issues, but the PostgreSQL community sometimes helps to find answers to questions.

I think it is difficult to setup. I amended my ID and Oracle advised me to change it, for it to work.

If you want one tenant, you can use MySQL. If you want a multi-tenant, I think Postgres is better. SQL on PostgreSQL is linked to Oracle. Oracle and Postgres is the same thing, the same language. You will not have a big change for the software developers to migrate from Oracle to Postgres. 

I would rate PostgreSQL 8 out of 10. 

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 use it in new team architectures, microservices architectures, and databases that are relatively small.

We also use it for table data, public web pages, some server applications that require data persistence, and some backend modules.

It's a useful solution, that can be widely used.

It is easy to use.

PostgreSQL has a large community.

The performance is good.

We don't have any use cases where we would use it in a large application as we do with Oracle. This is one limitation of this solution. We are unsure when it comes to deploying a large 24/7 application. 

It is possible that in the newer version this has been addressed, but I would like the deployment in microservices architecture could be improved.

I have been using PostgreSQL for five years.

We use several different versions. It is determined by the application. For server applications, we use version 9, which is an older version, and for others, we use the most recent version.

PostgreSQL is a stable solution.

This solution is used by 10 people in our company.

It is supported by a third-party company.

I have never contacted technical support.

I am also using Oracle.

I have no experience with the deployment of this solution.

The licensing model is good.

I would recommend this solution to others who are considering using it.

I would rate PostgreSQL a nine out of ten.

Currently, I'm doing a lot of source applications with Ruby on Rails, React, and mobile applications. PostgreSQL is my preferred database over MySQL. It's open-source and licenses are free, so it is excellent. The SQL queries are almost the same as MySQL.

Clustering is the number one feature. It is also open-source so it is free. It can also be clustered, to allow fault tolerance. MySQL has to be licensed, but PostgreSQL does all the same things. I have deployed both. You benefit from the way you use it. 

It could be improved by using parallelization. We want distributed computing. Some databases handle huge volumes of data better, such as the NoSQL database, MongoDB which can handle 100 000, or a million people using the same data search. PostgreSQL is going to take longer to do this, but it is more structured, and unlike MongoDB data is less likely to be duplicated. Large volumes of data can be handled better in PostgreSQL if the queries are written well.

I have been using PostgreSQL for about 2 years. I used to use version 9, about two years ago but right now I'm using version 10 or 12. I know how to create database functions. I know how to create relationships between data like primary keys and foreign keys etc.

I think PostgreSQL is more stable than MySQL.

As an RDBMS, a relational database management system, it scales well.

I have mainly used the Stack Overflow site for support, which is not technical support in particular. I have never been in a situation whereby I'm stuck and I have to go and ask PostgreSQL support.

The difficulty of the initial setup depends on the application you are deploying the code to. It can be integrated with Docker to enable automation of this process. I put PostgreSQL in a Docker container and then I just collect it. It just works wherever I deploy it. It takes less than three minutes. I use a continuous integration process. The Docker orchestration engine such as Kubernetes or Docker Swarm can be used to integrate with it. I store the code in GitHub or GitLab and your code is always there. Depending on the technology you're using, some things change in your configuration.

I have deployed them to Oracle recently. I've also deployed it in the cloud. There's really nothing special about the cloud, as long as I use the PostgreSQL machine I can deploy it anywhere. I want to deploy it on the Google cloud platform, and Amazon Web Services as these are well known virtual machines.

When it comes to pros, I would put MySQL and PostgreSQL in the same class. let's say I'm trying to write to the database and then the power went off. It will still keep the data integral. I don't have duplicated data, and data integrity is intact. With NoSQL databases I have to duplicate queries in case something like this happens I don't know whether my data is going to be integral in cases like a failure situation. PostgreSQL has the rollback function which remains integral. I cannot build a search engine using PostgreSQL, because that would be a very expensive hit on resources. Alternatively, with the ElasticSearch utility, and the use of load balancing, it is very easy to use. Elasticsearch returns substantial results and works in the background. I cannot do that with MySQL or PostgreSQL databases as that's actually a very expensive use of resources.

My advice would be to use PostgreSQL instead of MySQL because of licensing issues. Another reason is that Oracle may remove MySQL soon or add substantial costs to using it It may even turn into something like MariaDB, and then you would need to know if MariaDB and MySQL work the same? PostgreSQL really works well. There are a lot of other databases around right now, but PostgreSQL is the most popular. It is not like a hammer and a nail situation whereby it is the only thing you have to use. If you need a relational database management system, go for PostgreSQL instead of MariaDB or MySQL, then use it side to side. Can also consider other engines out there, like other NoSQL engines, perhaps. 

I would give it an 8 out of 10. PostgreSQL is not suitable for all types of applications, hence why I gave it an 8 instead of a 10.

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 deploy our databases in either a local cloud or AWS. For the locally deployed database, we have our own private cloud consisting of a couple of different data centers that we partner with. For everything else, we use Oracle or Microsoft SQL. On the Microsoft SQL side, that's not usually software as a service. It's generally done as a local installation on a virtual machine. If we're doing a deployment on an AWS environment, we use the AWS Postgres database. It's slightly different than doing the installation yourself. So if you're doing the PostgreSQL installation on a Linux environment, that's usually when we're using that directly from postgresql.org. 

It's an open-source database, so we can see the code used for that database. Also, we use it because it's lightweight, easy to deploy, and scalable for particular projects, especially if we're dealing with something that requires a Docker deployment.

I'd like to see better memory management. I think that that's one of the few areas that Postgres does not handle as well as MySQL does or did. 

I've used PostgreSQL off and on for different projects for probably about 20 years now.

Postgres' stability is wholly dependent on the skill and knowledge of the administrator who deployed it. Postgres is rock solid when deployed according to best practices as documented by the PostgreSQL community. When it's installed correctly, PostgreSQL is an enterprise-grade solution. It's reliable but requires more familiarity than you would necessarily need with a database like Oracle or Microsoft SQL out of the box.

The biggest shortcoming of Postgres and most open-source applications is support and documentation. There's usually a decent amount of technical documentation. That would be for someone that works exclusively within the database. But it would be helpful to have more documentation at the DevOps level so developers have a better idea of maintaining the database's performance without necessarily requiring a developer who specializes in that database. A lot of DevOps people are much more interested in writing their code for the databases to work. And sometimes, they end up devoting more time to database tuning than is necessary for an application developer. So documentation in that area would probably be best.

So back in late August, the developers released PostgreSQL 14, the most feature-rich deployment to date. And they did a reasonably decent write-up about the new and unique features. What I found most interesting is that you can use a straight-up Windows installer for the PostgreSQL database. And it includes all the components of the stack you need, so you don't necessarily need to know how to install its different parts. For example, suppose you're going to install it for Solaris, BSD, or Linux. So when you're installing in those three environments, it's usually packaged and requires secondary packages. And some of these packages are version dependent, so it can get complicated pretty quickly. If you are curious about how PostgreSQL databases run, I suggest you try it out on Windows first.

We use PostgreSQL alongside Microsoft and Oracle solutions. Postgre is suitable for scaling with specific projects. But while it scales very well, Postgre doesn't have the same recovery features as some larger-scale databases. For example, you can run Oracle Databases in a couple of different ways for easy recoverability should the primary database fail. First, you've got a rack for redundancy and load distribution. Second, Oracle has a feature called Data Guard that replicates the database in case it goes down. Data Guard allows you to run a completely different copy of the database that will take our main exports and keep it up to date. So if your primary database has a software or hardware failure, you can bring up the secondary database and re-task your applications to use that database. It's not as simple to do this with Postgres. 

I rate PostgreSQL eight out of 10. 

For us, we have the same use cases as MySQL for this product.

We've been happy with the capabilities. It doesn't have the issues that MySQL does have. 

The community support and the open-source community for it are good.

It's a stable solution.

We do find the product can scale. 

While it can scale, sometimes it requires more knowledge than SQL Server. 

They need to improve the user experience of the management. I'm not aware of Postgre needing a lot of new features, however, they can improve the user experience. That would be awesome. The backup strategies and that kind of stuff could be much better.

The solution is stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. The performance is excellent.

The solution can scale, however, you do need to be somewhat knowledgeable.

If the customer has saved a lot of money in the licensing, they may be able to afford to do the consultancy on scaling Postgre. That would help them when they scale. You can also get it on the cloud and scale with it rather easily.

There's a very strong community around the solution that you can access in order to get insights into how to work the solution and troubleshoot. 

We also have used MySQL.

The setup has a medium amount of difficulty. It's not overly difficult. 

Typically, we do implementations ourselves. That said, if it is a huge deployment or production, we might need help from a consultant or someone from the team who is an expert in the database. All in all, it's not that hard. It's not days of consultancy. It's a matter of hours or a single day.

The solution is open-source.

While you have to pay for it, for Postgre, you have to pay for consultancy and implementation. There is professional support, however, I'm not aware of the pricing for it right now. IBM maybe provides that kind of support.

We are just customers or end-users.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. It is something in the middle between MySQL and SQL Server.