Do you need separate systems when you already have Postgres?
postgresisenough.dev
July 6, 2026
2 min read
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
50/100
Summary
Postgres can serve multiple roles, including caching, queuing, searching, and handling documents and vector embeddings. Many teams overcomplicate their architecture with unnecessary microservices and databases, leading to increased operational overhead and maintenance burdens.
Key Takeaways
- Postgres can handle multiple data needs, such as caching, job queues, and full-text search, reducing the need for additional databases.
- Most software projects do not reach "webscale," making it unnecessary for startups to adopt complex multi-database architectures.
- Adding more databases increases operational overhead, maintenance burden, and complexity, which can hinder development efficiency.
- Companies like Notion and Netflix successfully use Postgres for their applications, demonstrating its capability for handling significant workloads.
Community Sentiment
Positives
- Postgres is a robust choice, but Redis shines for fast, non-critical storage — it's like having a reliable backup plan that doesn't bog down your main database.
- Redis is incredibly easy to add to your stack, offering unmatched speed and stability for caching without the headaches of managing a more complex system.
- Using Postgres for everything seems limiting; embracing specialized tools like Redis can lead to better performance and less operational stress.
Concerns
- The push to use Postgres for everything feels like a one-size-fits-all approach that ignores the nuances of different use cases and the need for specialized solutions.
- Articles promoting Postgres as the ultimate solution risk creating an echo chamber, potentially leading to poor decisions when the realities of system demands hit.
- Reliance on Postgres extensions can lead to unnecessary complexity, making it harder to maintain a clean and efficient architecture.
