[dozzie]

> If not, why not?

First most important question to answer: in what way MS SQL Server would be better than PostgreSQL? Fields to consider:

- Easier to install? (apt-get install postgresql-server)

- Easier to use? (initiating the Sybase client library used to be terrible) (EDIT: it was installing the client library, not initiating it)

- Easier to manage? (Postgres is excellent in this field)

- Has important functions or features that PostgreSQL doesn't?

- Works significantly faster than PostgreSQL?

Going out of one's way to use third party software needs to give some benefits to offset the cost of doing so.

[james_anderson]

Yeah, I agree. Each has the odd thing the other doesn't but it is hard to justify the cost of SQL Server over Postgres

[BrentOzar]

> but it is hard to justify the cost of SQL Server over Postgres

For the benefits of readers who don't know, SQL Server Standard Edition is ~$2k USD per CPU core, and Enterprise Edition is $7k.

[snuxoll]

EnterpriseDB is something like $1700/core/year, which targets the same market - "enterprise" shops who want a vendors neck to wring when something breaks.

Honestly, SQL Server is priced very well - even enterprise edition given the features it provides. The biggest problem I have with it is T-SQL being terrible compared to pl/pgsql and the lack of developer-centric features like arrays, composite types, and a lot of other QoL features postgres has that MSSQL doesn't.

If you're going to deploy SQL Server, being able to do it on a platform that doesn't make me as a sysadmin/DevOps Engineer want to strangle myself with cluster configuration nightmares is a welcome change.

[arethuza]

What if I want to run an application that doesn't support Postgres?