PostgreSQL Reviews

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. 

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. 

The database is used for our customers' products. We also offer some products on our POC system, and our customer's POC systems post some data stored on PostgreSQL on the cloud. Our company's data doesn't store at PostgreSQL. We still have our system MS SQL and Oracle.

The solution is very easy to use. You don't have to be extremely knowledgeable or technical to take advantage of it.

The product is quite flexible. 

We find it to be one of the cheapest options on the market. It's not expensive to use. 

The pricing could be better.

We've used the solution for ten years at this point. It may even be longer.

The solution is quite stable. We haven't had any issues with it. We haven't experienced bugs or glitches. It's reliable.

The solution is scalable. We've made some upgrades on our system, and it was so easy to do for the actual upgrades. In terms of the database itself, we haven't really had any issues with it.

I don't have any experience with technical support. Other teams in our company end up handling that. I can't speak to their knowledgeability or responsiveness having never worked with them.

I don't recall us using a different product.

In terms of the initial setup, we generally use the cloud system. The cloud system is very easy to set up these days. If you choose some with pre-installment, you trigger the system, and it's pretty automatic. You don't need a lot of things configured. After that, after you start to use it, you can tune it as you like. We made some adjustments on the system - such as additional storage or additional RAM or other resources - and we were able to add those in very easily.

The production system we use for reporting is a read-only system. Due to this, if we use the production system for reporting or other kinds of big data, the system can be slow on the customer side. However, Postgres can still service all the tasks which we need.

We haven't needed too many people to handle deployment and maintenance. There's been around ten or so that have been on it.

The pricing is reasonable. Of course, our economy has been hurt a little due to COVID-19. The pandemic has affected a lot of us. It's been hard for the companies that sell services with a database cost. You really have to choose the lowest-priced options right now. Postgres offers a fair price on the market, currently. That said, it could be less expensive, especially right now.

We definitely plan to continue to use the solution in the future. It's been quite good for us.

That said, I'm not in the financial department and I don't know the exact cost of the solution.

We're just customers and end-users.

We generally use the last version, as we try to ensure all of our programs are the latest technology. Therefore, we generally use cloud platforms like Amazon or Microsoft, which is Azure. Whichever version is on the cloud, we generally use that version.

That said, some of it is on the cloud and some of it is on-premise. In Turkey, we have some legal requirements that require some data to be stored in our country. We have to store it locally. Therefore, we can't use the cloud completely.

I'd recommend the solution to other organizations.

I would rate the product at an eight out of ten.

The database for the accounting systems is our primary use case for this solution. Business software is 80% of my use case in the accounting software. It's a good tool for planning. I work with financial data and the data mining aspect is very important, as I need to access the data easily. The data is the most important thing. Sometimes the software developers forget this part because they just want to save the data on the database, but they don't know how to manipulate the data. The performance of the solution is dependant on how easily and quickly you can obtain access to the data.

I can use Unity Kinematic. It's not easy but you can create a multi-tenant database in Postgres and I think it's a must-have in software development. With the database, you can provide a multi-component at the same service with the same performance, scalability, or all those things. 

PostgreSQL is limited to 32 TB in maximum table size for version 9.6 and earlier. This can be problematic for large databases. We currently don't have the multi-tenant feature and we require that with the contract integrated reassurance. To create have one tenant or more tenants, I need to implement or develop a software solution to connect with the multi-tenant, and to connect each tenant. PostgreSQL is not great for software developers, but it is adequate. For developers, databases such as Firebase and MongoDB technology are better. With PostgreSQL, all you need the database for is to save your data. This function on its own is not enough. The database and applications can become very slow. To debug you need to make the database query display information on your device. Some developers are not experienced in developing databases. This is especially difficult for junior software developers, and they often need more experience to be able to deal with that aspect.

We have been using Postgres for about 10 years. 

It is a stable database.

Because PostgreSQL is limited in regards to the amount of data it can hold in a single table, you often think it might be better to change the technology. Other than that, it is a good solution for business.

Sometimes it is not simple to resolve issues, but the PostgreSQL community sometimes helps to find answers to questions.

I think it is difficult to setup. I amended my ID and Oracle advised me to change it, for it to work.

If you want one tenant, you can use MySQL. If you want a multi-tenant, I think Postgres is better. SQL on PostgreSQL is linked to Oracle. Oracle and Postgres is the same thing, the same language. You will not have a big change for the software developers to migrate from Oracle to Postgres. 

I would rate PostgreSQL 8 out of 10. 

Currently, I'm doing a lot of source applications with Ruby on Rails, React, and mobile applications. PostgreSQL is my preferred database over MySQL. It's open-source and licenses are free, so it is excellent. The SQL queries are almost the same as MySQL.

Clustering is the number one feature. It is also open-source so it is free. It can also be clustered, to allow fault tolerance. MySQL has to be licensed, but PostgreSQL does all the same things. I have deployed both. You benefit from the way you use it. 

It could be improved by using parallelization. We want distributed computing. Some databases handle huge volumes of data better, such as the NoSQL database, MongoDB which can handle 100 000, or a million people using the same data search. PostgreSQL is going to take longer to do this, but it is more structured, and unlike MongoDB data is less likely to be duplicated. Large volumes of data can be handled better in PostgreSQL if the queries are written well.

I have been using PostgreSQL for about 2 years. I used to use version 9, about two years ago but right now I'm using version 10 or 12. I know how to create database functions. I know how to create relationships between data like primary keys and foreign keys etc.

I think PostgreSQL is more stable than MySQL.

As an RDBMS, a relational database management system, it scales well.

I have mainly used the Stack Overflow site for support, which is not technical support in particular. I have never been in a situation whereby I'm stuck and I have to go and ask PostgreSQL support.

The difficulty of the initial setup depends on the application you are deploying the code to. It can be integrated with Docker to enable automation of this process. I put PostgreSQL in a Docker container and then I just collect it. It just works wherever I deploy it. It takes less than three minutes. I use a continuous integration process. The Docker orchestration engine such as Kubernetes or Docker Swarm can be used to integrate with it. I store the code in GitHub or GitLab and your code is always there. Depending on the technology you're using, some things change in your configuration.

I have deployed them to Oracle recently. I've also deployed it in the cloud. There's really nothing special about the cloud, as long as I use the PostgreSQL machine I can deploy it anywhere. I want to deploy it on the Google cloud platform, and Amazon Web Services as these are well known virtual machines.

When it comes to pros, I would put MySQL and PostgreSQL in the same class. let's say I'm trying to write to the database and then the power went off. It will still keep the data integral. I don't have duplicated data, and data integrity is intact. With NoSQL databases I have to duplicate queries in case something like this happens I don't know whether my data is going to be integral in cases like a failure situation. PostgreSQL has the rollback function which remains integral. I cannot build a search engine using PostgreSQL, because that would be a very expensive hit on resources. Alternatively, with the ElasticSearch utility, and the use of load balancing, it is very easy to use. Elasticsearch returns substantial results and works in the background. I cannot do that with MySQL or PostgreSQL databases as that's actually a very expensive use of resources.

My advice would be to use PostgreSQL instead of MySQL because of licensing issues. Another reason is that Oracle may remove MySQL soon or add substantial costs to using it It may even turn into something like MariaDB, and then you would need to know if MariaDB and MySQL work the same? PostgreSQL really works well. There are a lot of other databases around right now, but PostgreSQL is the most popular. It is not like a hammer and a nail situation whereby it is the only thing you have to use. If you need a relational database management system, go for PostgreSQL instead of MariaDB or MySQL, then use it side to side. Can also consider other engines out there, like other NoSQL engines, perhaps. 

I would give it an 8 out of 10. PostgreSQL is not suitable for all types of applications, hence why I gave it an 8 instead of a 10.

One use case is that we installed it and built it for a customer so that he has access to the database, and he can create whatever he would like to create on it. 

We have deployed it on-premises and in the cloud.

It is easy to install and easy to manage. There is no license on it, so it is free. 

There is high compatibility with Oracle, and there are many tools for the migration of data from Oracle to Postgre. 

It still needs to be more mature and have some backup feature. We are normally dealing with Oracle's data, and we have very strong online tools to back up the data and do other things. PostgreSQL still needs to do more in this area as well as in the high availability area. There are many external tools that you can use for PostgreSQL's high availability, but there is no embedded tool within PostgreSQL for high availability.

It could have a feature similar to Oracle for working on a distributed system. It can have some scripts to improve the monitoring and some tools to do performance analysis. We have a workaround for most of such requirements except for the support for a distributed system, which is very difficult to have. This area should be included in the core of the database itself. 

I have been using this solution for almost one year.

I didn't have any issues, but I think Oracle is more stable.

I didn't have experience with that because we didn't make any changes since we built it. All I have is one server, and I can only have one standby, nothing more. 

We didn't contact them. We didn't face any serious issues that required support.

I am also using Oracle Database. The main difference is the scalability. PostgreSQL could be used for small to medium databases but not for a huge production database. I still prefer to have Oracle Database.

The initial setup was straightforward. It did not take too long. It took maybe one hour to do the installation.

It is free. There is no license on it.

Go ahead and implement it. It is a nice product, but keep a backup and try to use it for small to medium projects or companies. Some of the customers are demanding PostgreSQL nowadays, so we will keep on implementing it.

I would rate PostgreSQL an eight out of ten.

I use the solution in my company for relational data and transactional data storage as part of our microservices. We use the tool as a relational relational data storage.

The tool's most valuable feature is its simplicity. As it is SQL-based, the tool is quick to deploy and adapt. The open-source PostgreSQL tool is very useful for us. Basically, it's a simple small DB maintenance tool.

I haven't gone too deep into the tool's technical side.

I don't think PostgreSQL supports bulk databases, so it needs to have more capabilities in terms of managing the bulk data.

AI capabilities would be a good feature to be included in the tool.

I have been using PostgreSQL for five years. I am a customer and integrator of the solution.

The stable versions provided by PostgreSQL are good enough. I have not seen many features of the tool that are related to stability during my usage.

I haven't gone through the scalability aspect since I was using MySQL Server. I haven't worked to a high level in PostgreSQL, but with MySQL Server, I have managed clustering and partitioning. I think I haven't put much focus on PostgreSQL, so I am not sure how it behaves or how it works.

I haven't utilized any of the technical support, but I think it has a good online community. I rate the technical support a ten out of ten.

Positive

Microsoft SQL Server is a tool that I have used more on the on-prem deployment side. Microsoft SQL Server has more capability in terms of partitioning and scaling, but I have not tried anything similar in PostgreSQL. PostgreSQL has a good advantage when we deploy it on-premises. When it comes to the cloud, PostgreSQL is a good option because it is cheaper and can be well-managed by the cloud provider.

The product's deployment is easy.

I normally tend to go with the docker-based deployment. There are a few other options on the deployment side. We have managed PostgreSQL from Azure or AWS RDS and some other tools. I mainly focus on docker-based installation for the development side, and that is quite easy.

One person can manage the tool's deployment and configuration.

My earlier organization had paid to use the tool on Azure so that they could use it as a managed PostgreSQL tool. We had a license for the managed PostgreSQL version that is not used on the production side.

The tool is cheaply priced compared to other RDBMS providers in the market.

I haven't worked much on the tool's migration part.

I have never heard of any AI capabilities in the tool.

I rate the tool a ten out of ten.