PostgreSQL Reviews

PostgreSQL, especially the latest versions, comes with a very rich set of server side programming tools, while providing speed, data consistency and the transaction's coherence.

This is a very wide answer, but this large environment is providing fast solutions to various needs and I see this the main power.

I have a quick example about how it reduced the amount of backend code and also improved the application's performance. When you are in a scenario where your application has an input, and based on that, you have to do several back and forth exchanges with the database to get more information or do data changes, you can do that transactionally by using a stored procedure.

Some may say that this puts logic in the database, and yes it does, but it's the most efficient way to get the right output. By exploiting the PL/PgSQL capabilities it can be done and maintained more efficiently than usual backend code.

Another reason for improvement is that PL/PgSQL is a type safe language and this reduces considerably the amount of errors and even the functional flow of the application. Stored procedures are transactional, so either everything goes well, or an error happens.

Starting with v9 it can be seen an intensive activity to bring more features, more performance or productivity. I would like to see it be more reliable, and easier if possible, to make PostgreSQL clusters - more machines working together as a single instance .Providing an autonomous solution to share data across machines or replicate when it's needed. I would like to see horizontal scaling, up and down, made easier, and if something happens (I've rarely encounter cases after version 8), easier recovery from database general failure.

I have been using PostgreSQL from v7.2 through v9.4, over more than decade. I have deployed it on both Linux and Windows machines.

My first interaction was in October 2002 and since then I've continued to use it for various applications or services, varying from a few tens of thousands of records per table to hundreds of millions and more complex deployments.

The source for Linux machines were usually ("usually" because in the beginning you had to compile certain versions yourself, especially for custom setups) the operating system's repositories and for Windows the packages prepared on the official PostgreSQL website.

I've experienced stability issues on versions 7 and 8, but setup properly none (in my case) on version 9.

Database mirroring was very impressive five to seven years ago, and since then many things have changed. At that time, horizontal scalability wasn't mature enough and we preferred to manage multiple instances independently, something that is going on today. One of my next projects is to test the limits of todays solutions for PostgreSQL clusters.

First of all I think PostgreSQL's documentation is very rich (still missing more complex examples or aspects) and provides a lot of answers. Then you may find a large community and forums. And more professional people able to help.

I've always followed this path before calling a certain customer service or support, of course with the cost of investing a lot of personal time to understand things and apply measures. But this was a personal curiosity and pleasure.

I've used a larger set of databases (including the most well-known and a few more exotic) and setups. Definitively PostgreSQL is a serious contender at the top of the list. I chose it because it's fast, reliable, rich in functionality, and it has no commercial costs for its acquisition.

Starting a simple database is straightforward, but when it comes to set up, machines for heavy duty operations, read or write, there is a consistent learning curve to take into consideration.

PostgreSQL is a complex database, but once your start mastering its features you discover that things work.

I have always implemented in-house and sometimes I've looked around for vendor sources just to understand with what they come more.

Definitiely they help reduce the learning curve and there are promises for richer scalability options.

In the cases I've seen ROI was very good and it touched visible aspects from reduced ETA of developed applications, to better performance, easier maintenance and faster support.

The investment was in proper hardware and learning curve to master the database. Charging for expertise to deploy PostgreSQL depends on the expected setup, but in all cases, my choice would be to include a database specialist as early as possible within the development team.

The reason is that pure developers tend to rely on database power, making poorly optimized queries or choosing bad structures that explode later. The data warehouse team then have to clean it up, causing a loss for everyone.

This is a very good product, and I'm very pleased, especially with the latest versions. I haven't found the perfect database yet, but definitively PostgreSQL is a candidate to consider, especially if you take into account that comes for free and is open source.

I had many debates about PostgreSQL and I've never seen yet someone getting to know it and complaining about it. It simply helps and works, but you have to be good at it. Going for commercial solutions might bring serious costs and a feeling of confidence, but this database is not only for try or start, it's reliable and well done.

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. 

PostgreSQL provides the perfect combination of freedom, reliability, stability, security, performance, power, and ease of use. Freedom because it is the only world-class RDBMS not owned by a company. Reliability because anyone looking among the tons of public bugs from other RDBMSs such as Oracle or DB2, and does a comparison with PostgreSQL bugs, will feel confident. PostgreSQL is secured by design, with their own firewall for host-based authentication. PostgreSQL has a superior optimizer, the performance is very good in heavily loaded environments, and it has unique features such as partial indexes and full text search support with GIN indexes. Regarding power, PostgreSQL is a best of breed RDBMS in terms of SQL capability, procedural languages (many of them), programming language and datatypes support (including JSON) and async LISTEN/NOTIFY. Finally, the ease of use or autonomy, is a very valuable factor; PostgreSQL have all the configuration in two single files (postgresql.conf and the "firewall" pg_hba.conf).

We have migrated some databases from Oracle to PostgreSQL lowering licensing fees and reducing the vendor lock-in, gaining sovereignty.

The are many items in my wish list - parallel access (in development), incremental backups, standard MERGE statement (there is a similar INSERT/ON CONFLICT DO), snapshot queries (SELECT AS OF TIMESTAMP), better monitoring stats views, a "trace" feature for a specified running backend, allow streaming replication for a standby from a previous major release in order to minimize downtime during upgrades (this could be difficult with physical standbys, maybe could be easier with logical replication). Of course, everybody needs to keep in mind that any wish list needs to point to the core features, because PostgreSQL is FOSS, and there are other ecosystems out there developing third party features. Here, my wish list for third party software factories is the HTTP->PL/pgSQL adapter, that will enable the development of an Enterprise Web Application Development Framework with just a database (like Oracle APEX).

I've used this solution for more than six years. I started using it in 2009.

Deployment is very easy in PostgreSQL.

Regarding stability, I never viewed runaway processes, nor needed to execute kill or use the Linux IPCRM command against PostgreSQL resources, unlike Oracle and DB2.

It is possible to scale-up (simply adding resources), on demand and without restrictions because PostgreSQL is free. Further, it is possible to realize read scalability with hot standbys.

Very good, based on the few opportunities where I have had to post a problem. I always got an answer quicker in the PostgreSQL forum than opening Oracle SRs or IBM APARs, and the resolutions were also more accurate.

I have more than 10 years of DBA experience, working with Oracle, DB2 and MySQL too. All of them have pluses and minuses, and I usually need to explain that nobody can claim "X is better to Y", at least with the universe limited to world-class RDBMS like PostgreSQL, Oracle, DB2 and MySQL. Of course, certain scenarios can mean that one RDBMS is better positioned than another to handle.

The learning curve is much friendlier with PostgreSQL than with Oracle or DB2. In fact, this could be a risk, because heavily loaded production environments usually needs DBA monitoring and intervention.

I did it in-house. The only advice is to read and learn from PostgreSQL documentation and related books or blogs. PostgreSQL is easy to start, but is a complex RDBMS with many screws to adjust.

There is no pricing/licensing at all. Of course, there are many companies offering PostgreSQL support at different costs and some specialized in several languages/countries.

Ask the community. I believe any committed PostgreSQL user will be happy to help and provide advice.

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 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. 

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.

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 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.