My sentiments exactly. Anyone at the low side of scale thinking about MS SQL, should seriously do a current survey of things in the dbms space.. there is absolutely no NEED to pay for dbms in 2026. Those old dinosours only still exist, because of the data hijacking nature of past db designs and coding. Everybody and their grandmother were obfuscating code and designs in order to bake in customer loyalty and repetitive patronage. Those old projects are keeping the lights on at proprietary DB Inc. AT the high end of things, you're gonna need db engineers, and if you get yourself Microsoftie hammersharks disguised as professional engineers, they gonna see everything as a nail.
It really is a good database. Give it lots of room. If you can distribute your workload on multiple machines though, you can't beat Postgres' licencing terms vs SQL Server.
Why is it a good database? Integration with Entra? I've heard arguments in favor of Oracle DB, but I've never heard anything good about MSSQL besides integration with the MS ecosystem.
The SQL Server query planner is head and shoulders above what Postgres offers in the types of optimizations it will apply to your queries. It also properly caches query plans.
It offers heap tables, as well as index organized tables depending on what you need.
The protocol supports running multiple queries and getting multiple resultsets back at once saving some round-trips and resources.
Also supports things like global temp tables, and in memory tables, which are helpful for some use cases.
The parallelism story for a single query is still stronger with SQL Server.
I'm sure I could think of more, but it's been a few years since I've used it myself and I've forgotten a bit.
It is a good database. I just wouldn't use it for my startup. I could never justify that license cost, and how it restricts how you design your infrastructure due to the cost and license terms.
That’s kind of my point. They’re not really in competition. I bet they’d have an easier time with this scale if they were on SQL Server, but obviously that migration isn’t happening and startups don’t reach for it for many reasons.
My sentiments exactly. Anyone at the low side of scale thinking about MS SQL, should seriously do a current survey of things in the dbms space.. there is absolutely no NEED to pay for dbms in 2026. Those old dinosours only still exist, because of the data hijacking nature of past db designs and coding. Everybody and their grandmother were obfuscating code and designs in order to bake in customer loyalty and repetitive patronage. Those old projects are keeping the lights on at proprietary DB Inc. AT the high end of things, you're gonna need db engineers, and if you get yourself Microsoftie hammersharks disguised as professional engineers, they gonna see everything as a nail.
It really is a good database. Give it lots of room. If you can distribute your workload on multiple machines though, you can't beat Postgres' licencing terms vs SQL Server.
Why is it a good database? Integration with Entra? I've heard arguments in favor of Oracle DB, but I've never heard anything good about MSSQL besides integration with the MS ecosystem.
The SQL Server query planner is head and shoulders above what Postgres offers in the types of optimizations it will apply to your queries. It also properly caches query plans.
It offers heap tables, as well as index organized tables depending on what you need.
The protocol supports running multiple queries and getting multiple resultsets back at once saving some round-trips and resources.
Also supports things like global temp tables, and in memory tables, which are helpful for some use cases.
The parallelism story for a single query is still stronger with SQL Server.
I'm sure I could think of more, but it's been a few years since I've used it myself and I've forgotten a bit.
It is a good database. I just wouldn't use it for my startup. I could never justify that license cost, and how it restricts how you design your infrastructure due to the cost and license terms.
1 reply →
That’s kind of my point. They’re not really in competition. I bet they’d have an easier time with this scale if they were on SQL Server, but obviously that migration isn’t happening and startups don’t reach for it for many reasons.
The software licencing of 50 read replicas alone would make sqlserver a non-starter