SQL Server to PostgreSQL: the savings almost no one calculates
The cost of SQL Server is not in the monthly invoice; it is in the cores nobody counted.
SQL Server Enterprise runs around USD $15,123 per core, and the count grows with every processor. Most people look only at the visible number and never add up what they will pay over the next three years. PostgreSQL covers most of those workloads with no license. The cumulative difference is surprising.
01 The per-core cost multiplies fast
At ~USD $15,123 per core, a server with 16 cores is already six figures in license. Add replicas and test environments and the number takes off.
~USD $15,123 per core
02 Non-production environments count too
Development, QA, and standby tend to add up licenses no one remembers. On PostgreSQL, spinning up an extra environment adds no license cost.
03 Compatibility is high
T-SQL differs from PL/pgSQL, but most procedures and queries convert with bounded, well-measured effort.
04 The savings are recurring, not one-time
Unlike a promotion, not paying for a license repeats every year. That is the effect almost no one projects out three years.
// A typical case (illustrative)
Picture a company with SQL Server Enterprise totaling 24 cores across production and replicas. In license alone we are talking about ~USD $360,000, plus annual support on top. Migrating to PostgreSQL, that licensing base disappears. Projected over three years, the cumulative savings comfortably exceeds the one-time cost of the migration.
Illustrative example with typical market figures, not a specific client.
// next step
Ask for a real inventory of licensed cores and a map of what converts directly. At dba.mx we deliver it at a fixed price with a firm cap, no surprises halfway through the project.