PostgreSQL Reviews

We deployed the Postgre database on CentOS, which is a version of Linux. We have experimented with our replication and other operations. It works perfectly well. We are using the open-source version and do not plan on using any enterprise database.

PostgreSQL could improve by adding data warehousing tools.

I have been using PostgreSQL for approximately eight years.

PostgreSQL is stable.

The solution is scalable, it is very good.

We have approximately 100 users using this solution.

There is a lot of community support online to help with many things, such as updates. The online support is very active.

The installation is straightforward and simple, it took only half an hour.

We did the implementation through an in-house IT engineer.

We have a team of approximately five engineers that manage the solution.

We are using the free version of PostgreSQL.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate PostgreSQL a nine out of ten.

This solution is very good and efficient in joining big tables. It also provides a lot of options that, from a developer's point of view, can be utilized in a project. 

In the next release, I would like to see better integration with other platforms.

I've been using this solution for about three and a half years.

This solution is stable - I'm not aware of any performance issues.

This is a scalable solution.

The initial setup is simple - you are only required to download the installation files, which takes just a few minutes.

I would rate this solution as seven out of ten.

Any relational databases that you have in Oracle, you can move to PostgreSQL. This is what we have been doing at the moment. 

I like that you can move any relational database from Oracle to PostgreSQL. I also like that it's pretty stable.

The price could be better.

I have been using PostgreSQL for a few years.

PostgreSQL is quite stable.

We used Oracle before switching to PostgreSQL.

The initial setup and installation didn't take a lot of time. It usually takes about a couple of hours.

I implemented this solution by myself.

It could be much cheaper. If you would like to build an application on Amazon today, PostgreSQL is the standard database with Redshift. If you want other databases, you can add them, but PostgreSQL is the basis of everything. It's a question of money, that's it.

I would recommend it as a choice for people that want to move from Oracle to another database, which is relatively free. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would give PostgreSQL an eight.

We use PostgreSQL as a database for our ERP system.

There are several features I would like to improve that aren't working as expected. It's likely that the latest version is doing something that was missed in the previous versions. For example, the output parameters — the stored procedures — is something new in PostgreSQL that Firebird has already had for a long time. We haven't tried the latest version, but they're supposed to add some of the most important things.

I've been using PostgreSQL for nearly 20 years.

PostgreSQL is stable. It's available, stable, and reliable.

Installing PostgreSQL is not so easy, and the installation takes about one day.

I rate PostgreSQL eight out of 10. I would definitely recommend it.

We use the solution for media purposes. We manage the sites of one of the largest sports business papers and multiple TV channels. So, we develop the websites.

We are increasingly using their support for JSON, which we find to be very complete, something I made use of in the past. The solution provides complete support in terms of the SQL dialect and behaves nicely when it comes to transactions. One can change the database structure transactionally. This is one of the few databases that allows this. I like it. 

The solution is comparable in sophistication with that of Oracle. Each product has a few things less and more than the other. We also like that the solution is open source. We have good performance with a small footprint. It's rather nice. It's very robust.

The solution could be improved through an upgrade to the latest version. 

A better graphic user-interface would be nice to see. 

There is nothing I particularly dislike about the solution. The data propagation in master-slave configurations would be a good example. This is one of the features that I understood the least, yet we have it working and use it to propagate from the content management system database to the multiple publishing databases. 

This said, I would like this propagation feature to be simplified for new users and to come with better explanation. However, I will refrain from giving criticism on this point, as I do not know if they already handled this in the last version. Overall, I have only praise for the solution.

I cannot point to anything in particular that we are missing out on at the moment. What comes to mind are features that I have yet to try, although I don't  have any wish lists for PostgreSQL at the moment. I don't know how it stacks up when it comes to the importing and exporting of data. For databases involving this, we just make use of Redshift, which is verified from PostgreSQL and developed by Amazon. 

I have been using PostgreSQL for a couple of years.

The solution is very stable. We have databases that have been running for years.

We have scaled the solution just to three slave machines, but it works well when it comes to master and slave. 

Mostly, support consists of the community and there are several consultancies, should the need arise, although we have never had use of these. There have been no issues on this end. Community support has always been sufficient for us. 

On a single machine, the initial setup is extremely easy. I also find configuration to be very simple. It is similar to MySQL in that a person must know what he wants when it comes to setting up the solution, in which certain features would come into play. Setting it up in a different way will involve the use of multiple search engines. 

With the solution, one installs it and whatever he tunes is optional. Of course, he would have to play with the configurations if he wishes to have specific personality, such as cluster configurations, or tuning for very demanding performance. Overall, for small things or development, one need only install it, start it and it's done. 

While the length of the deployment varies with the configuration, a simple one will take a couple of minutes. 

We deploy the solution both on-premises and on AWS. 

I had my doubts about the functionality before joining this company, as it seemed very complex. It turns out that the solution is actually very simple to set up and we have it working all the time without any problems. It survives the network partitions, so we like this very much. 

My advice is that a person just try it and use it. For me, it beats out JSON and is superior to MongoDB. It works in a completely different way. But, overall, I would rather use PostgreSQL when it comes to starting and manipulating JSON and it boasts superior integrity and performance. Of course, there are specific things that MongoDB does differently. A person's mileage may vary, depending on what he wishes to accomplish. 

I rate PostgreSQL as a nine out of ten and I choose to knock it down a point only because it could use a better graphic user-interface. 

We use it as a backend for some vendor-supplied tools and products. We also do a certain amount of software development, and we use it as the database platform behind our own software.

We have a number of deployments, and the version number very much depends on the vendor software requirements. We have on-premises and cloud deployments.

It is a pretty comprehensive database system. Its performance is good, and it does what it is supposed to do. It also integrates very well.

There are some products out there that have a slightly different method of implementation for the SQL language. Some of those are slightly better in some areas, and PostgreSQL is slightly better in some areas. I would probably like to match all of those products together. It is just down to the functionality. For example, Oracle has a number of options within SQL that are outside of what you would class as the SQL standard. PostgreSQL misses some of those, but PostgreSQL does other things that are better than what Oracle does. I would like to merge those two products so that there is a certain amount of functionality in a single product.

We have been using it probably for two years.

In terms of the number of users, the users on PostgreSQL itself are probably application-level users, so you may only find two or three accounts per instance, but the application-level users can easily go up to 300.

We use the open-source product. We don't take it from any given supplier. So, we haven't got any tech support.

The tech support primarily is me. I am a systems administrator, and I do database administration as well. If we need any further in-depth support, depending on which product is sitting on top of that database, we will go to the vendor, but like most IT teams, we would admit that Google is your best friend.

We were using Sybase. We've actually transitioned most of it over to PostgreSQL.

It is easy to install. The deployment duration depends on what you're deploying. If you just want a database, I can have a PostgreSQL database installed and deployed in probably about 20 minutes. If you're looking for clustering or failover and mirroring, that would obviously impact the time, but it doesn't take a significant amount of time.

I deploy it myself.

It is open source. There is no licensing.

It is a very good RDBMS, and I'm quite happy with it. It does what it says, and it does it fairly well. I've seen some bits that are stronger in other products and some bits that are weaker in other products. My recommendation would depend on the requirements and the use cases.

I would rate PostgreSQL a nine out of 10. It does its job adequately, and I am quite happy with what it does at the moment. You wouldn't hear a 10 from me for any database vendor at the moment.

We use this solution for the back-end database.

The PostgreSQL database is similar to the SQL Server but has a slightly different technology that has similar resources as well. If the customer has the confidence using SQL Server, they will be fairly comfortable using this solution.

PostgreSQL could improve by being more user-friendly. In SQL Server they have a studio where you can easily do management but not in this solution. 

I have been using PostgreSQL within the past 12 months.

I have found the solution stable.

The solution is scalable but it could improve.

We have approximately 10 users using this solution in my organization.

We are using the open-source version for eight years. We have to rely on our own skillset to manage it.

The installation is easy.

We did the implementation ourselves but it is always recommended to use an expert.

This solution can offer a cheaper choice for customers since it is open-source.

I have evaluated SQL Server.

If you have a startup company with a normal production environment then this PostgreSQL should be fine. However, if there is a professional environment where there will be some support requirements and mission-critical applications, then they should choose an alternative, such as SQL Server.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate PostgreSQLa seven out of ten.

We use it for processing files mostly. It integrates basically with the SQL Server. On the server-side it uses the SQL Server, then from the files that are generated from SQL Server we do have an application running using Microsoft, and we attach it to a Postgres server. We do is for the backups there from time to time.

Overall, the solution is very good. 

The solution is free to use.

It is easy to use and quite stable. It's as robust as Oracle, however, SQL Server is easier to use I think.

The product is very similar to the SQL Server. 

The installation is quite fast.

If you look at overall PostgreSQL, it could be easier to use.

I'm not yet able to use all of the features on the product at this time. 

I'm not really able to customize it.

The integration could be easier. SQL Server has an easier integration process, for example, as a comparison.

With Postgres, you can run it in Windows Server, however, there are other things that you have to run.

The product is more for technical people. For example, SQL Server is for anybody. Even newer users can just pick it up and learn from it and mess with it and run it. You can't do that with PostgreSQL. It has more of a learning curve. YOu need more training and documentation.

We've been using the solution for about five years. We've used it for a while, however, it is only on a few workstations.

The solution is very good and very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. it doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

There are only a couple of users at this time as we restrict it only to local implementations. Per store, we do have certain applications that use it. 

We haven't reached out to techncial support. As with Linux, if you want tech support then you have to pay a subscription for it. The free version is, with what we have here, working well and we haven't had problems.

I have only a couple of people helping me with regards to the tech support, internally. That's why we spend a lot of time focusing more on the SQL Server and the Microsoft products.

We did not previously use other products. 

I've also used Oracle and Microsoft SQL. This product is free and more robust than Oracle, however, Microsoft SQL might be easier to use.

The installation is pretty quick. It's not hard to set up. I wouldn't describe it as a complex process. 

We only have a couple of people on staff that can handle deployment and maintenance. 

The product is free. You don't have to pay a license fee. 

The last one that we used is version 11 or something like that. I'm not sure if that's the latest version or not.

Postgres is similar to Linux. It's designed for people who would know what they want, who would have to set up what they need, and they would use it, and they know that it's straightforward, so that other people cannot just go in and mess with it.

I'd rate the product as a nine out of ten.

I'd recommend the solution to other users. 

We use this solution as part of our backend to store data that is coming from the sensors. 

It is needed to save the meter data from the sensors.

It is easy to use.

It could be more secure.

I have been working with PostgreSQL for approximately two years.

I am using the latest version.

PostgreSQL is a stable solution.

We use this solution for organization's applications at the backend and it is not used directly by the end-users.

I have not contacted technical support.

It is a bit different from Oracle, with respect to security.

The initial setup is straightforward.

It was a token installation, I can do it myself.

I would recommend PostgreSQL to others who are interested in using this solution.

I would rate PostgresSQL a seven out of ten.

We use the solution for database management and storage.

The most valuable feature is the performance.

The solution could improve the integration.

I have been using this solution for approximately four years.

I have found the solution to be stable.

PostgreSQL is a scalable solution. However, it could be better.

I have not needed to use the support.

The installation is not simple, it is more difficult than DeviceSQL. We had a few issues during the installation.

I did the implementation of this solution myself and it was more complex than MySQL.

I have evaluated MySQL and DeviceSQL.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate PostgreSQL an eight out of ten.