PostgreSQL Reviews

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.

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.

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 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 often use PostgreSQL for operations monitoring because we are a manufacturing company.

We often find the solution's datetime datatype challenging.

I have been using PostgreSQL for four years and five months.

PostgreSQL is a stable solution, and we haven’t faced any performance issues.

We faced no difficulty in installing PostgreSQL.

It took us five minutes to deploy the solution.

Overall, I rate PostgreSQL an eight out of ten.

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.

PostgreSQL has excellent support for many programming languages. We've been able to integrate it with Java, PHP, Perl and .NET without any issues. 

Replication is also working pretty good in a master to read only replica setup in AWS. 

We've been able to cut costs on databases over our previous solution with Microsoft SQL Server and migrate many applications into Amazon web services. Performance has been decent. 

By far the biggest limitations are in replication support. A native master to master replication option would make things much easier as we're in need of an easier method to load balance traffic with Spring Data.  

PostgreSQL is slower than MySQL with insert performance. While using COPY can make an application fast, we often use ORMs which cannot benefit from this. 

9.4 seemed to have some regressions with the query planner and multi table joins are slower than in previous versions. 

I've been using PostgreSQL for 5 years.

Finding the right configuration to balance performance and connections was a little challenging in our setup. 

We've encountered some CPU bound scalability issues with multi table joins (3-4) and the query planner seems to ignore indexes at times. 

Initially applications at my current employer used Microsoft SQL Server. The cost for licensing/maintaining windows systems was more than we liked. PostgreSQL has offered similar performance for our workloads with lower cost. 

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.