alt Hacker NewsI've found that Postgres consumes (by default) more disk than, for example, MySQL. And the difference is quite significant. That means more money that I have to pay every month. But, sure Postgres seems like I system that integrates a lot of subsystems, that adds a lot of complexity too. I'm just marking the bad points because you mention the good points in the post. You're also trying to sell you service, which is good too.
Replies
PunchyHamster • yesterday at 11:07 PM
On flipside, restore from plain postgresql dump is much, much faster than plain mysql backup. There are alternative strategies for mysql but that's extra work
EvanAnderson • yesterday at 10:26 PM
Some people do Postgres on compressed ZFS volumes to great success.
➕ show 2 replies
The problem is that Postgres uses something like 24B overhead per row. That is not a issue with small Tables, but when your having a few billion around, each byte starts to add up fast. Then you a need link tables that explode that number even more, etc ... It really eats a ton of data.
At some point you end up with binary columns and custom encoded values, to save space by reducing row count. Kind of doing away with the benefits of a DB.