PostgreSQL Reviews

I am using PostgreSQL to develop a general ledger system. The solution is on-premise right now, but it's going to be on the cloud soon.

PostgreSQL makes it very adaptable to several descriptions of a record. Instead of having several tables or several relations for one entity, I can adapt this entity. It can be a multiform entity. For example, here in Mexico, a company and a person can be sold to us as a physical entity or a physical person.

Each of these entities has some things that are common, such as name and registration for an identity for the ISR in the US and in Mexico's it is called the SAT. We have to have different characteristics for each of them. In PostgreSQL, I can easily create a field for this moral person, with a different set of fields. It allowed me to have some plasticity on each entity that I am describing. People that are working inside the company, have some requisites that are different from one position to another. This plasticity allows me to move it for every person that is inside the company. PostgreSQL allows me to do all of this will ease. This feature is called H store, it is wonderful. 

I'm using the replication that they have inside, in case one company may wish to have the solution on-premise, they can have the replication feature that is already embedded and it's free. You don't have to pay again for that solution.

PostgreSQL could improve by providing a geographical solution for tracking trucks and people in the field. They might already have features similar to this and I have not found them. I haven't done research about this topic.

I have been using PostgreSQL for approximately six years.

The solution is stable.

PostgreSQL is scalable.

I have not used the support from PostgreSQL. I have not had any large problems.

I have found all the information I need online in many of the communities they have.

I was previously using Microsoft SQL Server and MySQL.

With MySQL, I had once a terrible problem with a group that was only giving me the first record of a group. I had to implement it through other means for the solution to give me the result that I was required.

The initial setup of PostgreSQL was very simple. I am using Ubuntu and you only have to go to the synaptic and download the package and it's already stable. It can be down in a matter of minutes, it's wonderful.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate PostgreSQL a ten out of ten.

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 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 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.