title: GIS: PostGIS/PostgreSQL vs. MySql vs. SQL Server?
body: <p><strong>EDIT: I have been using Postgres with PostGIS for a few months now, and I am satisfied.</strong></p>
  
  <p>I need to analyze a few million geocoded records, each of which will have latitude and longitude. These records include data of at least three different types, and I will be trying to see if each set influences the other.</p>
  
  <p>What database is best for the underlying data store for all this data? Here's my desires:</p>
  
  <ul>
  <li><strong>I'm familiar with the DBMS.</strong> I'm weakest with PostgreSQL, but I am willing to learn if everything else checks out.</li>
  <li><strong>It does well with GIS queries.</strong> Google searches suggest that PostgreSQL + PostGIS may be the strongest? At least a lot of products seem to use it. MySql's Spatial Extensions seem comparatively minimal?</li>
  <li><strong>Low cost.</strong> Despite the 10GB DB limit in SQL Server Express 2008 R2, I'm not sure I want to live with this and other limitations of the free version.</li>
  <li><strong>Not antagonistic with Microsoft .NET Framework.</strong> Thanks to Connector/Net 6.3.4, MySql works well C# and .NET Framework 4 programs. It fully supports .NET 4's Entity Framework. I cannot find any noncommercial PostgreSQL equivalent, although I'm not opposed to paying $180 for Devart's dotConnect for PostgreSQL Professional Edition.</li>
  <li><strong>Compatible with R.</strong> It appears all 3 of these can talk with R using ODBC, so may not be an issue.</li>
  </ul>
  
  <p>I've already done some development using MySql, but I can change if necessary.</p>