Databases Comparison
MySQL vs PostgreSQL
Both are mature open-source relational databases and either will serve most applications well. PostgreSQL is stricter, more standards-compliant and far richer in features — JSONB, window functions, custom types, geospatial. MySQL is simpler, extremely well understood and slightly faster on simple read-heavy workloads. For a new project with no existing constraint, choose PostgreSQL.
The short answer
New project, free choice: PostgreSQL. Existing MySQL estate, or a stack that assumes MySQL: stay — the migration cost rarely pays for itself.
When to choose each
Choose MySQL
The most widely deployed open-source relational database.
- Read-heavy web workloads with simple queries
- Your hosting, CMS or framework assumes it — WordPress, most shared hosts
- The team already runs it and has the operational muscle memory
- You want the widest pool of hosting options and DBAs
Choose PostgreSQL
The most standards-compliant and feature-rich open-source RDBMS.
- Complex queries, CTEs, window functions and analytics
- You want JSONB, arrays, full-text search or geospatial without another store
- Correctness and strict standards compliance matter
- Starting fresh with no constraint pulling you elsewhere
MySQL vs PostgreSQL: side by side
11 dimensions. A highlighted cell means one side is clearly ahead on that specific point — most rows are trade-offs and score neither.
| Dimension | MySQL | PostgreSQL |
|---|---|---|
| Standards compliance | Good, with historical quirks — silent truncation and lax defaults in older versions. | Among the most standards-compliant databases available; strict by default. |
| JSON support | A JSON type with functional querying, but weaker indexing inside documents. | JSONB stores parsed binary JSON with GIN indexing and a rich operator set. |
| Concurrency | MVCC via InnoDB; generally solid for read-heavy workloads. | MVCC with strong write concurrency; readers never block writers. |
| Index types | B-tree, hash, full-text and spatial on InnoDB. | B-tree, hash, GIN, GiST, BRIN, SP-GiST, plus partial and expression indexes. |
| Extensibility | Limited — plugins and storage engines, but no custom types or languages. | Custom types, operators, functions and extensions such as PostGIS and pgvector. |
| Simple read performance | Very fast on straightforward primary-key reads; a long-standing strength. | Competitive, and better on complex queries — the historical gap has largely closed. |
| Replication | Mature built-in async and semi-sync replication, widely understood. | Streaming and logical replication; powerful, with slightly more setup. |
| Full-text search | Present and workable, less capable than a dedicated engine. | Strong built-in full-text search that removes the need for a separate index in many apps. |
| Hosting and ecosystem | Available essentially everywhere, including cheap shared hosting. | Widely available on managed platforms; less common on budget shared hosting. |
| Learning curve | Slightly gentler; fewer knobs and a smaller surface to learn. | Steeper, mostly because there is far more of it to learn. |
| Licence | GPL with a commercial option, owned by Oracle. | Permissive PostgreSQL licence, community-governed with no single owner. |
Standards compliance
MySQL
Good, with historical quirks — silent truncation and lax defaults in older versions.
PostgreSQL
Among the most standards-compliant databases available; strict by default.
JSON support
MySQL
A JSON type with functional querying, but weaker indexing inside documents.
PostgreSQL
JSONB stores parsed binary JSON with GIN indexing and a rich operator set.
Concurrency
MySQL
MVCC via InnoDB; generally solid for read-heavy workloads.
PostgreSQL
MVCC with strong write concurrency; readers never block writers.
Index types
MySQL
B-tree, hash, full-text and spatial on InnoDB.
PostgreSQL
B-tree, hash, GIN, GiST, BRIN, SP-GiST, plus partial and expression indexes.
Extensibility
MySQL
Limited — plugins and storage engines, but no custom types or languages.
PostgreSQL
Custom types, operators, functions and extensions such as PostGIS and pgvector.
Simple read performance
MySQL
Very fast on straightforward primary-key reads; a long-standing strength.
PostgreSQL
Competitive, and better on complex queries — the historical gap has largely closed.
Replication
MySQL
Mature built-in async and semi-sync replication, widely understood.
PostgreSQL
Streaming and logical replication; powerful, with slightly more setup.
Full-text search
MySQL
Present and workable, less capable than a dedicated engine.
PostgreSQL
Strong built-in full-text search that removes the need for a separate index in many apps.
Hosting and ecosystem
MySQL
Available essentially everywhere, including cheap shared hosting.
PostgreSQL
Widely available on managed platforms; less common on budget shared hosting.
Learning curve
MySQL
Slightly gentler; fewer knobs and a smaller surface to learn.
PostgreSQL
Steeper, mostly because there is far more of it to learn.
Licence
MySQL
GPL with a commercial option, owned by Oracle.
PostgreSQL
Permissive PostgreSQL licence, community-governed with no single owner.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is PostgreSQL slower than MySQL?
It used to be, on simple read-heavy workloads, and that reputation outlived the fact. Modern PostgreSQL is competitive on reads and generally better on complex queries and concurrent writes thanks to its MVCC implementation. Benchmark your own workload rather than trusting either reputation.
Which has better JSON support?
PostgreSQL, decisively. JSONB stores parsed binary JSON, supports GIN indexing and has a rich operator set, so you can query inside a document efficiently. MySQL's JSON type is functional but noticeably less capable, and indexing inside it is more awkward.
Should I migrate from MySQL to PostgreSQL?
Only for a concrete reason — a feature you need, or a query pattern MySQL handles badly. A migration means rewriting queries, retraining the team and revalidating everything. "PostgreSQL is better" is not on its own a business case.
What about MariaDB?
MariaDB is a MySQL fork created after the Oracle acquisition and is largely drop-in compatible. It is a reasonable MySQL substitute, especially where licensing is a concern. It does not change the comparison with PostgreSQL in any meaningful way.