PosgreSQL is pretty much my default. Any other database has to have compelling arguments for how it fits my use case if I'm going to use it over Postgres, and even then, it usually gets used for a subset of the data, while Postgres gets everything else.<p>I think it's better to default to the tried-and-true piece of software than the new and shiny, rather than the other way around and have to argue why Postgres is a good fit for your data.
That title is really great, and also rings true. And of all open-source SQL DBs, PostgreSQL is superbly executed and a breeze to work with. I can only recommend it.
I love PostgreSQL.<p>But for a personal project I went with MongoDB, because my data set was a perfect match for mongo's design.<p>Now I love mongo too, I'm amazed with how easy it has been to maintain 100% uptime on comodity hardware (one server is literally in a room in my apartment) through all the random server downtimes, upgrades, migrations, etc.<p>And now I have more ideas for some personal projects, and they would go very well with postgres, but I'm so missing replica sets from mongo.<p>If postgres would have something similar to replica sets in mongodb, that would be amazing.
I had a job interview at Zalando a while ago, and apart from the huge bunch of bananas at the entrance to the developer's den, the one thing I remember most about was the fact that apparently they're using stored procedures for basically any database transaction.<p>Which is probably a more unorthodox use of databases these days, at least for Postgres (I've heard it was more common for SQL Server and I once had the questionable joy of debugging a petri net solver in Oracle).
PostgreSQL is great, but I've gone back to MySQL because of the ease of which I can setup replication (which I like to use when possible in addition to automated/periodic backups).
Two years ago I switched from PHP and MySQL to Ruby and PostgreSQL. The only thing I'm missing is Sequel Pro. PG Admin is ok, does everything I need, but that interface is ugly and unintuitive.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.sequelpro.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.sequelpro.com/</a>
I found this video to be much more interesting
<a href="https://youtu.be/zsF1vfHBMBI" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/zsF1vfHBMBI</a><p>BTW I would like to send out a BIG THANK YOU to the guys that did the videos - this is such an important and great service for everybody who could not attend the conference, so: THANK YOU VERY MUCH!
I recently used Postgres for a serious project for the first time and I am really impressed. Certainly much more impressed with it than MySQL or SQL Server. plpgsql is far better than what MySQL offers out of the box, plus you have access to nicer languages out of the box with plv8, plpythonu, plr, etc. Language extensions really are a killer feature and make moving application logic into the database a cinch.
Are they using Postgres for content, or for data? (at a place where I can't really watch a movie)<p>There are some great content management tools out there, my favorite being apache jackrabbit, and on top of that, apache sling for displaying/accessing the content. It requires a different way of thinking than the standard mvc process - it is a more content focused display process.<p>I don't know... if you're using Postgres to store non-relational data you may want to reassess your strategy. You may find you're doing the right thing still, but I think most people would be better served with a system like jackrabbit/sling, which is is used by publishers, fashion houses, etc (via Adobe's product that is built on sling) to store and display their content.<p>(that said, you can use postgres on the back-end with sling)
Hmm, looking a bit at their site[1]:<p><i>Addidas jogging pants -- 59,95 €</i><p><i>Volcom T-shirt print -- 17,45 €</i><p><i>Under Armour T-shirt -- 39.95 €</i><p>Like really now -- who needs this stuff? Especially when you can just go to Aldi or Tchibo (or any of a number of other discount retailers readily visible at nearly every shopping mall in Germany) and buy essentially same stuff (minus the logos, of course) for 1/10th of the price. So perhaps a better title might be:<p><i>“Fashion generates revenue, and handsome pay-outs. But is basically pointless. And a soul-sucking waste of time.”</i><p>[1] <a href="https://www.zalando.de/herren-home/" rel="nofollow">https://www.zalando.de/herren-home/</a>