Many arguments here have been from the Redis point of view (and are quite defensive). Of course Redis has niches where it is the better choice.
But that’s not what I thought the point of the article was. I think the main argument from the article can be summed up with this line:
> PostgreSQL has a lot more capabilities than you may expect when you approach it from the perspective of just another SQL database or some mysterious entity that lives behind your ORM.
To me, this is the key line. If you’re only using your database from behind an ORM (any database, IMO), you’re probably missing functionality. And if you need to add another service (like Redis), you may be better served by using the database you already have setup, rather than adding another dependency.
But that’s not what I thought the point of the article was. I think the main argument from the article can be summed up with this line:
> PostgreSQL has a lot more capabilities than you may expect when you approach it from the perspective of just another SQL database or some mysterious entity that lives behind your ORM.
To me, this is the key line. If you’re only using your database from behind an ORM (any database, IMO), you’re probably missing functionality. And if you need to add another service (like Redis), you may be better served by using the database you already have setup, rather than adding another dependency.