Despite the considerable licensing costs associated with SQL Server, it remains a compelling choice for organizations, particularly when compared to open-source alternatives. SQL Server Enterprise Edition, for instance, commands a price tag of approximately ,000 per CPU core, not including the additional 23 percent for Software Assurance. While more economical options like PostgreSQL and MySQL exist, they may not always meet the expectations of CIOs and CTOs who often focus solely on budgetary considerations rather than the comprehensive functionality offered by SQL Server.
High Availability and Backups
High availability is a well-understood challenge for database management, and while cloud services such as Azure Database or Amazon RDS simplify this for PostgreSQL and MySQL, SQL Server provides a more mature solution. The processes involved in clustering SQL Server or establishing an availability group are well-documented and integrate seamlessly with Windows Server Failover Clustering. In contrast, achieving similar results in a Linux environment can be significantly more complex, often requiring multiple packages and extensive documentation to manage failovers effectively.
When it comes to backups, commercial databases like SQL Server have long been favored over their open-source counterparts. PostgreSQL offers three primary backup methods:
- SQL dump
- File system-level backup (which necessitates a database shutdown)
- Continuous archiving
The first two methods present challenges, with SQL dumps relying heavily on transaction logs and file system backups resembling outdated practices from SQL Server 6.5. Continuous archiving, while closer to SQL Server’s backup and restore process, is complex to implement. In contrast, cloud providers have largely resolved backup and restoration issues, making them less of a concern for SQL Server users.
Everything Built In, as Opposed to Everything Added On
In a recent project involving an automated database build process for a data warehouse in PostgreSQL, I encountered the need for the PostGIS extension to utilize a geography data type. While I successfully installed PostGIS on the server, I had to install it in each database individually, leading to complications during the creation process. This experience highlighted a key difference: SQL Server typically offers a more integrated experience, with many features available out of the box. For instance, temporal tables and graph databases are native to SQL Server, whereas PostgreSQL requires the installation of extensions, which can sometimes lead to confusion regarding the best options available.
Performance Is a More Complicated Topic
Both PostgreSQL and SQL Server are capable of handling demanding transaction processing workloads, making direct performance comparisons challenging. A notable design distinction is that SQL Server caches execution plans, which can reduce CPU usage for repeated queries. However, this can also lead to suboptimal plans. SQL Server excels in providing a suite of built-in tools for performance analysis, including the query store and detailed execution statistics, allowing DBAs and developers to quickly identify and address performance issues. In contrast, PostgreSQL requires additional packages, such as pg_stat, for similar tracking capabilities.
While both database engines are capable of supporting large-scale workloads, the management experience can differ significantly. SQL Server Management Studio (SSMS) offers a far superior user experience compared to PGAdmin, making it easier for DBAs and developers to navigate and manage their databases. Although PostgreSQL can support high-end workloads, the additional complexity can be a hurdle for those accustomed to the more user-friendly environment of SQL Server.
Reflecting on my recent experiences as a developer and DBA working with PostgreSQL, I have come to appreciate the conveniences offered by SQL Server, particularly in areas like deployment tools. SQLPackage, often criticized, still surpasses the available options for PostgreSQL. Additionally, the SQL Server community stands out for its support and engagement, offering a wealth of knowledge and assistance through various platforms, including conferences and online forums. Ultimately, while all database engines have matured and share overlapping functionalities, SQL Server continues to offer unique advantages that can make it a more appealing choice for many organizations.
