[manigandham]

> Postgres, but that anyone uses Microsoft or Oracle at all. Not only do they cost a lot, but from a purely technical standpoint they are worse.

Based on what? Both commercial databases have incredible features, tooling and extensions that leave postgres behind. Postgres today doesn't even have a solid scale-up or scale-out strategy.

It does have nice SQL support and makes developer lives a little easier but this isnt anywhere close to making it the absolute winner technically.

[e12e]

I'm curious what you mean by Postgres not having a "scale-up" strategy. Are you saying that eg MS SQL works better with a few TBs of ram and 128 cores than Postgres does?

[manigandham]

Yes. Postgres famously has been single-threaded for queries for a long time. The upcoming version 9.6 is finally introducing some basic parallel scan/join/aggregate functionality.

MS SQL, Oracle and pretty much all the commercial databases are much farther along in scaling up and making the most of a single machine.

[jeltz]

The very article you are commenting on is about scaling up with PostgreSQL. PostgreSQL is excellent at scaling up with many small queries, but has problems with few large ones.

[manigandham]

This is a brand new commit, it's not today. There's been some good progress recently but Postgres historically hasn't been the best at scaling up, especially compared to the commercial engines.