Jordan, One note - MS SQL is not "case insensitive". In it's default collation it is case insensitive - but it can be either case sensitive OR case insensitive depending on install options and collations.
-mark -----Original Message----- From: Jordan Michaels [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 6:10 PM To: CF-Talk Subject: Re: PostgreSQL vs. MSSQL MS SQL is a fine database, and will get the job done. However, why pay for a database like that when you can get essentially the same thing for free? I've got nothing but positive things to say about PostgreSQL, and I'd be very interested to hear what your friend has against it. In my experience, usually these kinds of opinions are derived from a lack of understanding about how something operates. With PostgreSQL, there are two items that generally end up as road blocks for most MS SQL users who try it out. 1) User permissions: PostgreSQL is not forgiving as far as user/access permissions go. This is both good (for security purposes) and bad (because it can be frustrating to learn). However, like most things, once you understand how it's permission system works, it's not that difficult - it's just different. 2) Case sensitivity: Unlike MS SQL, PostgreSQL is a case sensitive database. This can be the deciding factor when choosing to port an application from MS SQL to PostgreSQL. If you have a database called "User" in PostgreSQL, your queries will need to have that database name in quotes. Here's an example: Database: User Field Names: ID, UserName, Password MS SQL Query: <CFQUERY name="GetUser" datasource="MSSQL"> SELECT id, username, password FROM user </CFQUERY> PostgreSQL Query: <CFQUERY name="GetUser" datasource="PostgreSQL"> SELECT "ID", "UserName", "Password" FROM "User" </CFQUERY> In our shop we user lowercase names for everything in our databases, so I haven't had to do that for a long time when working with PostgreSQL. As such, I cannot remember if it was single quotes, or double-quotes that I had to use when dealing with names that had uppercase values in them. Still, you get the idea. With the exception of those two items, PostgreSQL is wonderful. The price is great, the performance is great, and the community support is great. I would highly recommend PostgreSQL to *anyone* looking for a high-performance, low cost alternative to MS SQL. Hope this helps! Warm regards, Jordan Michaels Vivio Technologies http://www.viviotech.net/ Blue Dragon Alliance Member [EMAIL PROTECTED] Matt Quackenbush wrote: > Hello, > > I've always used MSSQL and quite frankly am quite fond of it - except > for licensing costs. I've read a few posts here and there where > people have talked highly of PostgreSQL, so I'm thinking about giving > it a shot on a new server (windows box). I mentioned this to a buddy > of mine who is a DBA, and he said to steer well clear of it. While I > value his opinion greatly, I was wondering if the users here would > care to share their personal + vs. - arguments for PostgreSQL? > > > Thanks, > > Matt > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Create robust enterprise, web RIAs. Upgrade & integrate Adobe Coldfusion MX7 with Flex 2 http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;56760587;14748456;a?http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=LVNU Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:266021 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
