Tony, On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 10:35 PM Tony Shelver <tshel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have to agree on the geospatial (GIS) features. > I converted from SQL Server to Postgresql for our extended tracking > database. The SS geospatial feature set doesn't seem nearly as robust or > complete or perfoirmant as that supplied by PostGIS. > The PostGIS ecosystem of open source / 3rd party tools is also far bigger, > for anything to do with mapping. Openstreetmaps.org stores their world > dataset on Postgresql / PostGIS, and there a ton of mostly open > source-based tools and organizations that work with it or any other PostGIS > data to provide a complete GIS solution. > > My first sS implementation had me backing out of storing geographic points > in the relevant SQL Server datatype as the performance hit during loading > was just too big. Doing the same thing in Postgresql / PostGIS is nardly > noticeable. > > Another feature in Postgres is that you are not restricted to just plpgsql > as an internal procedural language. > > I am not an expert, but it also seems far easier to create, install and > work with major extensions to Postgresql than SQL Server. I found > installing the GIS featureset in SS to be a bit of a pain back oin the > day.. > GIS is a good feature but it's a niche feature, so while I'll mention it with extensions I am looking for more general-purpose comparisons and areas where Postgres is as-good or better than SQL Server. Thanks, Igal
