Why is PostgreSQL Harder to Manage/Maintain then other Databases

Question

I am very interested in postgesql because they have a uuid data type. I have done searches around SO and many people say that Postgres is harder to maintain and manage. Why is this? Is it because postgres needs more configuration, is it because postgres does not have a GUI?

Answer 1

I personally find PostgreSQL a lot easier to maintain than several other database. Not as easy as MSSQL. Easier than Oracle. A lot more predictable than mysql, and thus easier.

But I'm biased, since I'm involved with the PostgreSQL project.

But that goes to my point which is that whatever you're experienced in will seem easier. And PostgreSQL has fewer experienced administrators than "the big databases" and MySQL, which I believe contributes to the reputation.

Answer 2

For small-scale deployments, PostgreSQL is very easy to maintain. I've worked with a number of database-backed applications built in Postgres that were in production without anything other than periodic backups for anywhere from three to five years. Usually, hardware and operating system updates force changes long before the database does.

I think that much of the reputation Postgres has for being difficult to set up and manage stems from its historically poor Windows compatibility. Recent versions run on Windows just fine, but until the 8.X releases, trying to set up Postgres on Windows machines was an exercise in frustration involving heavy use of Cygwin.

Answer 3

Perhaps the vacuum concept (which seems novel to postgreSQL) is seen as extra maintenence? Perhaps the command line tools are a bit unfamiliar? Personally i've never had trouble getting PostgreSQL up and running or working with it.

Answer 4

I've found postgres to have a friendly "personality" and be very easy to work with. The detailed, clear and concise error messages with hints are a big part of this. The online community is excellent, too.

But it's like everything else : you got to learn it... it's not so difficult...