PostgreSQL Reviews

This solution is very good for getting data. It is very useful for reporting purposes. We also use one of the tools of IBM Cognos for reporting purposes.

For small-scale setups, the solution is stable.

The solution is open-source and free to use.

Currently, we are working with Postgre's economy, and we are not able to implement real-time solutions with our existing architecture. There's a general lack of real-time data from Postgre.

The solution isn't as stable for larger data sets. 

The scalability is limited.

We'd like the solution to be faster. 

I've been working with Postgre for the last two years. However, the organization that I was working with from the beginning has been using this. This was open-source and they've been working with it since 2017.

The product is stable only for working on relatively small data. It's not ideal for large amounts of data. Our business has grown rapidly. We have more customers and our data has grown very rapidly. We need to manage performance and tuning and may need a grander product. The performance could be better.

We're struggling with scalability. It's one of the issues we're facing right now.

This is hosted by this AWS. We generally raise tickets to them whenever we're in need of assistance.

For example, if we're doing any replication or any of that thing, we just raise tickets, and it gets resolved through them.

The support has been pretty good.

I was not involved in the actual deployment of the solution and therefore cannot speak to how difficult or simple the process was.

Currently, I've been given the role to do some research and switch to a different database.

The solution is open-source. We don't need to have a license in order to use it. 

We're currently looking for a more modern solution to replace Postgre. I'm aware of AWS Redshift, Query, and Nextly. These are major players in the market.

We are just a customer of Postgre.

Since the data volume has increased rapidly, we are concerned Postgre won't be suitable for our long-term requirements. We're currently looking for an all-in-one option.

I'd advise users that are not looking for speed or do not have huge amounts of data to try this solution. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

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. 

We are using PostgreSQL for databases.

PostgreSQL is very easy to use. I have experience in Oracle SQL and PostgreSQL uses the same syntax which makes it is easy for me to develop.

The performance of PostgreSQL could improve.

I have been using PostgreSQL for approximately three years.

In my usage of PostgreSQL, it has been stable.

PostgreSQL is scalable.

We have approximately 70 people using the solution in my organization.

When our engineers have difficulty we use Google to search for a solution online. There is information online that can be very helpful.

I have used MariaDB and Oracle MySQL.

The installation is very simple and took three to four hours.

I did the implementation of PostgreSQL. We have a team of three manages and fifteen engineers that do the maintenance of the solution.

There is an annual license.

I rate PostgreSQL an eight 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.

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 the solution to conduct surveys and consider this approach to be one which is cheaper for us. 

The solution is quite stable. This said, it's more prestigious to use MySQL, although we haven't made comparisons for safety and reliability.

The performance is too low, although we haven't tested for this. 

The interface climate could be better. There are many third party ones that we can use so it would be nice to see more support with the database diagrams.

We've been using PostgreSQL for certain small projects for the past three years.

The solution is quite stable for our use. 

We haven't tested scalability.

I cannot say for sure if we have plans to increase usage, as we have yet to run a test. 

While we do benefit from technical support, this is not something that we have required. 

The initial setup wasn't difficult. I'd say it was quite straightforward.

The installation took less than an hour. 

The need for our customers to pay for licences is contingent on their projects and budgets. It varies. 

We are not consultants to PotrgresSQL. We are usually consulted when it comes to using Microsoft MySQL Server, since we consider it to be quite robust and to have all the necessary support from Microsoft.

Fewer than 10 percent of our customers make use of PostgresSQL.

I would recommend the solution to others when when there is a desire to have projects and cost is a concern.

I would rate PostgresSQL as an eight out of ten, although this owes itself to personal preference and not to low performance. 

Typically, our team runs the database and then the applications, on Postgres. However, I'm not part of the development process.

The solution is quite stable and very reliable.

On the cloud side of the product, the solution scales quite well.

The initial setup is quick and easy.

I don't work directly on development, however, I haven't heard of any complaints from the development team in general. I can't speak to any features that may be missing. Our team seems quite satisfied with it overall.

It would be great if the solution offered even more integration capabilities.

We've been using the solution for the past two or three years at this point.

The stability, overall, has been good. I have not heard of issues with bugs or glitches. I cannot recall it crashing or freezing. Its performance has been reliable.

The product can scale well. However, this is mostly the case on the cloud, which more easily can scale as there are no physical limitations to hold a company back. If a company needs to scale using this solution, it can do so with relative ease, specifically if they use a cloud deployment.

We only have about ten to 15 or so users on the solution right now. On the products we produce there may be more, however, that varies. There could be a hundred or so users.

We have plans to continue to use the solution going forward.

We don't really use technical support too often. We have our own team that we can turn to, and they can handle most, if not all, issues.

We've used a few other products previously. We're also using MongoDB, or at least, we will be, in an application that we've just started.

The initial setup is not complex at all. I would describe it as straightforward and rather simple. 

The deployment is quick as well. It might have taken us about 45 minutes to an hour or so to get everything up and running. It's great.

We have a technical team or two or three people that can manage the deployment and maintenance. You don't need a big team.

We handled the implementation process ourselves. We didn't need the assistance of any consultants or integrators. It was pretty straightforward, and therefore we didn't need the extra help.

The product is a direct service, and it is free to use. There isn't a licensing fee.

We are simply a customer and end-user. We don't have a business relationship with PostgreSQL.

The solution is deployed both on the cloud and on-premises. We use more than one deployment model.

I can't recall the exact version number we are using, however, it's my understanding that it is not necessarily the latest version.

I'd recommend this product to other organizations. It's worked well for us so far.

In general, I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

I have used it in the past for some web applications and back-end databases. In my current organization, we are using Microsoft SQL Server.

It is very useful for both structured and unstructured data. You can store unstructured and structured data in PostgreSQL. It is easy to use. You can easily manage things through PostgreSQL Admin.

It is cost-effective. Its on-premise version is free. It is agnostic of on-premise or cloud. You can install it on the cloud or on-premises. It is available with all clouds, and you can also install it on desktop or Windows Servers.

It would be good to have machine learning functionality in this solution, similar to Microsoft SQL Server and other solutions. Machine learning capability for a basic level or a common user would be useful.

It can also have good reporting capabilities.

I have been using this solution for a couple of years.

PostgreSQL has been in the market for a long time. It is quite stable.

It is scalable. In my past organization, its usage had increased a lot. I had implemented data management and many other things on PostgreSQL.

In terms of the number of users, we had hundreds of users who used this solution. For development, we had seven or eight developers. We also had technical support and application teams.

I have not interacted with the support of Postgres because when it is on the cloud, it is managed by the respective cloud provider's team.

We used to provide service to various clients, and we were also providing internal services. We used different solutions in parallel, such as Amazon Redshift, MySQL. MySQL is also free. I have also used Oracle and IBM Db2 in other organizations.

Its installation is simple and easy. If it is in the cloud, you have to go for a subscription. On a desktop, you can install it with normal Unix commands.

I have not done full server version installation myself. If we go for Azure Cloud, its API is available. It takes five minutes to get it up and running on the cloud version. For desktop deployment, you can complete your setup within half an hour. 

It is open-source. If you use it on-premise, it is free. It also has enterprise or commercial versions. If you go for the cloud version, there will be a cost, but it is lower than Oracle or Microsoft. 

I would definitely recommend this solution. It is a very good database to have. It is also very good as compared to other tools.

I would rate PostgreSQL a nine out of ten.