PostgreSQL vs SQL Server installation Faceoff | Hacker News Reader

PostgreSQL vs SQL Server installation Faceoff

youtube.com

11 pointslatch24 comments

Because the installation time is what matters in databases which are supposed to run for years (or months - depends on your environment) without restarting... I'm not even going into differences between postgres and sql server features. Flagged.

(also: why do milliseconds go only up to ~20?)

With two digits, it could never be milliseconds. Milliseconds would require three digits and would be ludicrous to render them as the last digit would be just a blur.

Actually, it's frames. At 30 frames per second, frame number goes up to 29. On occasion, you may skip one, as 30 fps is actually 29.97 fps when you are talking about NTSC video timings.

And you seriously claim SQL Server is designed to run for years without restarting? A Windows box running for months without a restart (and without significant performance degradation) is already a technical accomplishment. For years? I never heard of such thing.

SQL Server is Microsoft's greatest software accomplishment and is a quite impressive body of work, but I see no reason to go with it unless your problem falls into the very narrow (and increasingly narrow) space between what SQL Server can do and what PostgreSQL (and MySQL) can do.

And in most cases, I would pick Oracle over MS SQL Server anyway.

SQL Server is Microsoft's greatest software accomplishment and is a quite impressive body of work

SQL Server is (was) Sybase, Microsoft bought the rights to fork it and sell it as SQL Server somewhere back in the late 1990s. So the accomplishment is not entirely theirs alone.

MS has added a lot to it since then, no doubt. They've also developed a lot of nice administration tools, which is probably their smartest move. Especially 10 years ago, when properly administering an Oracle database required a DBA with deep knowledge of command line tools, config files, and Oracle internals --- and a high five to six figure salary --- whereas SQL Server even then was all point and click.

I remember when MS SQL and Sybase were the same. MS SQL Server improved a whole lot since then. It's improvement could stand alone as Microsoft greatest software accomplishment - it's really improvement, not only feature bloat.

As for point-and-click vs deep understanding of what's going on, I'll go with the deep understanding. If I am going to trust my company's data to a machine, I want it to have a smart human caring for it.

>SQL Server is (was) Sybase

Way back at SQL Server 7 it had dramatically diverged from its roots. SQL Server 6.5 was really the only Sybase-like version.

Ah - frames make sense - I've never seen them included in a normal timer before.

I'm not suggesting that SQL server itself was designed to run years, but I hope that your database as a whole was. Of course you have to restart a single server sometimes, but most serious databases will be designed to stay up during that time via clustering / replication / whatever your solution is.

It's a very common timing scheme in video. It just makes sense to count frames from the seconds than fractions of a second (that would be a pain to translate into frames).

The goal is to show Windows folk that the Linux ecosystem has changed greatly over the last 1/2 decade. I know _a lot_ of Windows dev who are afraid of Linux - thinking they have to grab source, make/configure it when the right options and hope like hell.

As far as that goes it's a reasonable demonstration. I suspect many people will note how insignificant the actual installation time is in the context of the entire lifecycle.

You might also point out the cost difference. Depending on the terms under which you must license it, the MS SQL option could cost $25,000 vs Postgres at ... $0. To a bigcorp that's nothing, but when you start running a bunch of those servers it adds up fast. http://store.microsoft.com/microsoft/SQL-Server-2008-Enterpr...

Personally, I prefer Postgres to MS SQL because 1) it runs on *nix; 2) It's open-source; 3) significantly cheaper; 4) supports recursive queries; etc.

Showing a terminal window doesn't help calming the average MCSE...

Then you might show the supporting tools, scalability, write a nice article, show the tool in action, etc. etc. -- Not show that X installs in Y seconds and then spend a couple of minutes looking at a scaled down installer of SQL server. Showing such "comparison" along with texts like "wtf is up with that". This video is not "showing" anything - it's making fun of SQL server installation procedure.

I think wanting to install .NET and IIS is worthy of a WTF. You are installing a database server, not a website. If you want to install a web front-end to the server, you should run its own installer (and, probably, not run it on the same box as the db server itself)

The less you install on the database box, the less stuff you have to upgrade, the less exposure to security critical bugs you have and the less downtime for upgrading you will get.

Mandating .NET framework and IIS is just dumb.

Sure - it's a WTF. But if you want to show that X is better than Y to professionals, you don't say "Y sucks omgwtfbbq". We're (mostly) capable of reading lists of dependencies and a summary like "dependencies of X are: ... and weight ...MB, while dependencies of Y are: ... and weight ...MB, but we don't see the reason for dependencies: ...". Pointing fingers and laughing usually makes people aggressive, instead of showing a valid point. It's not dumb - there's a reason why it's installed as a dependency, even though it has bad sides too.

Latch wrote "The goal is to show Windows folk" - there are ways to show things without ridiculing the opposition. It's HN, not some other service, so let's try to keep the level high.

I completely agree that this is not - and should not be - the place for childish behaviour. It's however, hard to show MS SQL's installed side by side with Debian's APT and not look like you are trying to ridicule SQL Server. The WTF's are mostly noise I really haven't noticed until a second pass through them.

And "Windows folk" may very well not be appropriate terminology. This is a hacker place. There are Windows users, Windows enthusiasts (who tend to severly mod me down when I get carried away) and some Windows developers (the kind that develops Windows, not for Windows) and we should really try to keep everything civilized.

A humorous jab here and there won't hurt, however.

The thing that you're missing is that MSSQl is much more than just a database server. Now, I agree that if all you're trying to do is install the bare minimum RDBMS then IIS shouldn't be required. .Net though is always going to be required because you can write extended stored procedures in c# and have full access to the .Net object library (very cool btw).

IIS is going to be required when installing parts of MSSQL like SSRS or MSAS since they can interact with client tools and users through IIS.

You can also install SQL Server from the command prompt:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms144259.aspx

So I'm not sure what this is really showing... that a GUI is slower than typing?

I find the IACCEPTSQLSERVERLICENSETERMS -parameter bit humorous.

For Microsoft, certainly. I wouldn't accept them ;-)

All I have to say about PostgreSQL vs SQL Server is LIMIT ... OFFSET.

I've been porting a SQL Server app over to PostgreSQL, but in the meantime having to maintain the SQL Server one. The lack of LIMIT/OFFSET in SQL Server is maddening.

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/187998/row-offset-in-ms-s...

SQL queries are seldom considered examples of neatness, but the top solution (which is a good one, as far as my rusty TSQL allows me to judge) is a textbook example of a kludge.

Not that I think OFFSET and LIMIT belong in SQL (IIRC, ANSI folks agree). It's a query language, not a presentation one.

What do offset and limit have to do with presentation?

The comparison seems a bit unfair, in that the SQL Server stuff is going to be installing a boatload more stuff - much of which will be useful to administration (management tools - backups, schema mgt, etc). In cases where you don't need that, pg or mysql can win, but a SQL Server install is so much more than just the engine.

actually, only the core SQL Server engine was installed - no management/reporting/xxx tools beyond the bare minimum the installer allowed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com