PostgreSQL Reviews

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.

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.

The solution is quite a good database for light applications for sure. This is how we are using it - as a front-end application and the canned database of PostgreSQL. The use case is comparable to Oracle, with quite a wide range of usage.

It's easy to install in Oracle and it's quite good to use for the canned database for content applications.

The solution is quite a good database.

Their pricing is very good.

The solution is very easy to use.

It's quite scalable.

The stability is good.

The installation is simple. 

I don't work with the solution often enough to really know if there are any missing elements. For me, for how I use it, it works fine.

We're only really using two to five percent of the functionality available.

While there's no perfect solution, we aren't using too much of the functionality to really be able to comment on what might be missing.

If it was free to use, it would be the perfect solution.

We're currently using the solution. We've used it at least over the past year.

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

The scalability is very good. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so with ease.

We have around 2,000 people using the solution currently. It might even be a bit more.

We also use Oracle Database. I would say the two are quite comparable.

The installation is not overly complex. You just install it and start using it. It's simple. We are using AWS for both instances so it's simple and easy. That said, I was not personally involved in the installation process.

How many people you require for the implementation depends on the implementation itself. It can be one person or it can be five. It's difficult to say. In our case, we have only one person looking after all instances.

It's not an expensive solution.

I can't recall the exact version number of the solution. We're planning to move to the latest version.

The solution is installed in the cloud, however, it's a software as a service, provided by AWS.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. It's very comparable to Oracle.

While it does depend on the use case, for the most part, I would recommend the solution to other companies and users.

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.