MySQL vs PostgreSQL: The 2010 Showdown
It has been a rough year for the open-source community. Oracle’s acquisition of Sun Microsystems has left many of us looking at our /var/lib/mysql directories with a mix of suspicion and dread. Is MySQL still the community standard we grew up with, or is it time to jump ship? Meanwhile, PostgreSQL 9.0 dropped this September, bringing streaming replication to the masses and finally offering a viable alternative to complex proprietary clusters.
I have spent the last decade debugging MyISAM table corruption at 3 AM. I have also watched PostgreSQL queries stall because of poor vacuum configurations. If you are building a system today, in late 2010, the choice isn't just about syntax. It is about data integrity, replication strategy, and ultimately, ensuring your Norwegian clients don't lose transactions due to a segfault.
The MySQL Philosophy: Speed at the Cost of Safety?
Let’s be honest: MySQL is the web's default. If you are running a LAMP stack on CentOS 5, it’s already there. MySQL 5.1 (and the upcoming 5.5) focuses heavily on read speed. For a news site or a blog targeting users in Oslo, it is blazing fast.
However, the default storage engine, MyISAM, is a ticking time bomb. It relies on table-level locking. If one user writes to the table, everyone else waits. Worse, it is not transaction-safe. If your server loses power during a write, good luck with myisamchk. You might recover the data, or you might not.
Pro Tip: If you stick with MySQL, force the switch to InnoDB. It provides row-level locking and ACID compliance. Add this to your my.cnf to ensure you are actually using your RAM for caching:
[mysqld]
default-storage-engine = InnoDB
innodb_buffer_pool_size = 512M # Adjust based on your CoolVDS RAM allocation
innodb_flush_log_at_trx_commit = 1 # Essential for ACID compliance
PostgreSQL 9.0: The "Adult" in the Room
PostgreSQL has always been the academic choice, but version 9.0 changes the game. It introduces Hot Standby and Streaming Replication built-in. Before this year, setting up Postgres replication meant dealing with Slony-I or messy trigger-based solutions. Now, it is native.
Postgres handles complex joins and subqueries significantly better than MySQL. If you are dealing with financial data or strict compliance requirements under the Norwegian Personal Data Act (Personopplysningsloven), you need the strict typing and transactional integrity Postgres offers. It doesn't truncate your strings silently; it throws an error. It forces you to be a better developer.
The trade-off? It is heavier. A fresh Postgres install consumes more resources than MySQL. It requires faster disks because its Write Ahead Log (WAL) architecture is I/O intensive.
The Hardware Reality: Why I/O is King
You can tune your configuration files until your eyes bleed, but you cannot tune your way out of slow spinning rust. Database performance is almost always I/O bound.
Most VPS providers in Europe are still overselling massive SATA arrays. They put 50 customers on a single set of 7.2k RPM drives. When your neighbor runs a backup, your database latency spikes. I saw this recently with a client trying to host a Magento store on a budget host in Germany; page loads hit 4 seconds because the disk queue was choked.
This is why at CoolVDS, we refuse to overprovision storage. We use enterprise-grade RAID setups that prioritize IOPS (Input/Output Operations Per Second). Whether you choose MySQL or Postgres, if the underlying disk can't write the journal fast enough, your database locks up.
Comparison: Which one fits your project?
| Feature | MySQL 5.1/5.5 | PostgreSQL 9.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Default Engine | MyISAM (Non-Transactional) | Transactional (ACID) |
| Replication | Asynchronous (Statement/Row) | Streaming / Hot Standby |
| Best Use Case | Read-heavy Web Apps (CMS) | Complex Data / Financials |
| Learning Curve | Low | Moderate to High |
Latency and Sovereignty
Beyond the software, think about where your bits live. Datatilsynet is becoming increasingly strict about how personal data is handled. Hosting your database on a server physically located in Norway or nearby Nordic infrastructure simplifies your compliance adherence significantly compared to hosting in the US.
Furthermore, latency matters. Pinging a database in Texas from Oslo takes ~140ms. Pinging a CoolVDS instance takes less than 10ms. For a database application doing 50 sequential queries to render a page, that latency stacks up. 50 queries x 140ms = 7 seconds of network lag alone. That is unacceptable.
The Verdict
If you are migrating a legacy PHP application, MySQL (with InnoDB enabled) is likely your path of least resistance. But if you are starting a new project in 2011, especially one requiring complex logic or strict data safety, PostgreSQL 9.0 is the superior technology.
Regardless of your engine choice, your database needs dedicated resources. Don't let noisy neighbors steal your CPU cycles or choke your disk bandwidth. Deploy your next database on a platform that respects the hardware requirements of modern RDBMS.
Need to test the new PostgreSQL 9.0 replication features? Spin up a high-performance Linux instance on CoolVDS today and see the difference dedicated resources make.