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 the product to manage large datasets. We also use it for forecasting. The product is integrated into our application to test the data.

The processes are quick. The data is arranged well. The tool is user-friendly. We are working on a Windows app. It is easy to view and analyze the data. The logs are valuable. The solution is reliable. It is a Windows-based application.

The search option is not very good. If I need to see data in a table, I must go into the table. The solution must provide filter options in the log files so that we can search for a particular range of data.

I have been using the product for four to five months.

We have not had any performance issues with the solution.

The solution is scalable. Though the data grows with time, the performance stays the same. Four to five people are using the solution in our organization. We are expecting an increase in the number of users soon. The data processed is large since we work on forecasting.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We do not use the product for web application development. The management decided to use the product. I recommend the tool to others. If the data format is okay, we will face no problem using the tool. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

I use PostgreSQL on-premises to store monitoring data collected by  Zabbix Server.

I wanted a database engine that could handle an ingress of a thousand real-time values per second, delete old items without affecting performance, and handle hundreds of user queries at all times.

The solution had to support high compression and time series data while maintaining data integrity and performance.

I wanted the database engine to be easy to tune, secure, and set up.

PostgreSQL matched those requirements and has regular updates and plenty of official and community support resources.

PostgreSQL greatly improved our monitoring solutions data storage, performance, compression, and processing. Our monitoring solutions run efficiently with little maintenance.

The availability, stability, and reliability of our monitoring solutions greatly improved because the database engine scales out well, is easy to tune, easy to upgrade and manage, and supports extensions and plugins for specific use cases. One such plugin is TimescaleDB and it has proved greatly beneficial for time-series data storage and automatic partitioning of the database.The upgrade of the database has been great too, from 12 to 13 to version 14.

The most valuable feature is support for the Timescale DB extension. We managed to reduce the storage space needed to 10% of the original size, without affecting data integrity, and we significantly improved the performance.

The database engine is easy to manage, the tuning is friendly, and the integration with supported extensions is friendly too.

The database engine is free and open-source, too. Since we did everything internally, it has greatly reduced the costs of setting up our systems.

It also supports diverse kinds of replication, which is crucial for a high availability environment that we plan to set in the near future.

PostgreSQL uses high memory compared to its counterparts when a highly demanding workload with many database connections is in use, especially one that makes many concurrent connections to the database. 

Like many other databases, the tuning is manual through a configuration file. It would be useful if the database engine could detect the specifications of the machine in which it is installed and so bring some levels of auto-tuning. 

PostgreSQL replication support isn't so straightforward for multi-sources and master replicas. It will be great if native support of those replication modes become available in the future.

I have been using PostgreSQL for more than four years.

Stability-wise, I have a great impression.

It can be easily scaled.

We haven't used the official support but judging from the available resources on the website and other outlets it seems their support is good.

Positive

I used other database management systems (MySQL and its variant MariaDB) for my NMS applications before moving to PostgreSQL. I had some optimization issues on MySQL and MariaDB and decided to switch to PostgreSQL, mainly for the TimescaleDB extension support provided on PostgreSQL and which my application natively support including automatic database partitioning and compression. TimescaleDB proved to be helpful since I mostly deal with time series data and the TimescaleDB hypertables improved my applications perfomance greatly.

The initial setup was straightforward, although it needed time to get everything well-tuned. 

I implemented in-house.

The ROI is 100%.

PostgreSQL is free and open-source, so if capable admins are available then the setup cost can be negligible. We use internal resources, so it was completely free for us. One can choose the available official support too.

I evaluated other options including MySQL and its variant MariaDB & Percona Server for MySQL, Oracle DB, and SQLite.

For anybody who is considering this solution, my advice is that it is better to do enough research on the specific database engine requirements.

I highly recommend PostgreSQL with TimescaleDB extension for time-series data.

The product is easy to use and works fast for relational databases.

There could be a plugin to distribute the data on servers for the product.

We have been using PostgreSQL for one month.

I rate the platform's stability an eight out of ten. It could be better.

The product's scalability for large databases needs improvement. Like Oracle, there could be an option or solution to manage if the data exceeds.

I have used MySQL.

The initial setup process is easy. It takes about ten minutes to compete.

It is an open-source platform.

If you need a relational database, the product is a good fit. However, it is complicated to scale for large data. I rate PostgreSQL a nine out of ten.

For us, we have the same use cases as MySQL for this product.

We've been happy with the capabilities. It doesn't have the issues that MySQL does have. 

The community support and the open-source community for it are good.

It's a stable solution.

We do find the product can scale. 

While it can scale, sometimes it requires more knowledge than SQL Server. 

They need to improve the user experience of the management. I'm not aware of Postgre needing a lot of new features, however, they can improve the user experience. That would be awesome. The backup strategies and that kind of stuff could be much better.

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

The solution can scale, however, you do need to be somewhat knowledgeable.

If the customer has saved a lot of money in the licensing, they may be able to afford to do the consultancy on scaling Postgre. That would help them when they scale. You can also get it on the cloud and scale with it rather easily.

There's a very strong community around the solution that you can access in order to get insights into how to work the solution and troubleshoot. 

We also have used MySQL.

The setup has a medium amount of difficulty. It's not overly difficult. 

Typically, we do implementations ourselves. That said, if it is a huge deployment or production, we might need help from a consultant or someone from the team who is an expert in the database. All in all, it's not that hard. It's not days of consultancy. It's a matter of hours or a single day.

The solution is open-source.

While you have to pay for it, for Postgre, you have to pay for consultancy and implementation. There is professional support, however, I'm not aware of the pricing for it right now. IBM maybe provides that kind of support.

We are just customers or end-users.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. It is something in the middle between MySQL and SQL Server.

We are using it as a database to store information.

Postgres SQL is quite a good database.

The performance is good.

I have noticed that user and access management should be improved. Connection pooling should be improved. We rely on connection pooling.

Monitoring is incompatible. It is open source. To advance, you must access the internet and download and test various other tools, or develop your own tools. With Microsoft server, it is one single platform that provides you with everything, but with Postgre you have to install or check different tools to integrate with it. That's the annoyance, but it's still the way open source technology works.

I would like to see better management in PostgreSQL.

PostgreSQL is easy to scale.

We have a medium-sized company.

We don't have technical support. It is community-based. We get assistance through Github.

We have been working with Microsoft SQL.

The main difference between SQL and Postgre is that Postgre is open source. It's completely free.

It's very simple to set up.

Postgre is open source. It is almost completely free.

The community version of Postgre is basically free.

We are utilizing the database's active native security features. As a result, we currently have no need for any external security tools. We had, but we worked around it.

The advice would be to go with a managed Postgre. If you're going to install Postgre in the cloud, for example, it's better to go with a managed Postgre rather than handling everything on our own.

I would rate PostgreSQL a nine 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 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.