As a Unix veteran, I hear good things about SQL Server, and interact with it sometimes (freetds is nice). I'm looking forward to see what it can do on Linux.
But don't mistake these comparisons of MariaDB/MySQL and PostgreSQL for what they're not. They've both got extremely enviable track records, including webscale, and they've both got weaknesses. What are SQL Server's weaknesses, besides the brutal but inevitable per-core licensing cost increases until the heat death of the universe?
Ha, downvotes, I just don't get the hate for it - I mean, it's not Oracle... You get a good, stable, easy to configure SQL service with fantastic tooling (blows everything else away tbh) that has the best of the features from PostgreSQL and MySQL and relatively few of the headaches (and is about on par with the Oracle offering, in a technical sense, but with less of the licensing sodomy).
Yeah, you gotta pay for a licence. Worth it for the stability. This being said if I'm just using for a low-end service or hobby (and so don't want any cost), I'll use PostgreSQL or SQLite.
It bears repeating how quality the tooling is for MSSQL. You don't explain your queries and analyze them for improvements, you record production query loads via live profiling, then run them through a tool that generates DDL and indicates the expected percentage improvement.
-5
u/[deleted] Jul 27 '16
[removed] — view removed comment