When comparing PostgreSQL and MySQL in terms of their performance for JOIN and INSERT operations, several factors come into play, including the specific use case, data volume, and system configuration. Here's a detailed analysis based on the provided sources:
JOIN Operations
PostgreSQL:
PostgreSQL supports a variety of JOIN algorithms including Nested Loop, Hash Join, and Sort Merge Join[11]. This flexibility allows it to efficiently handle JOIN operations across a wide range of scenarios, especially when dealing with large datasets or complex queries.
It is particularly strong in scenarios requiring advanced SQL syntax and large table scans, sorts, or analytics functions, making it suitable for business intelligence or data warehousing needs where complex multi-table SQL performance is crucial[6].
MySQL:
MySQL primarily supports the Nested Loop Join algorithm[11]. While effective in many common scenarios, this can limit its efficiency in more complex or large-scale JOIN operations compared to PostgreSQL.
MySQL is generally optimized for simpler query patterns and may require manual tuning to achieve optimal performance for complex JOINs[6].
INSERT Operations
PostgreSQL:
PostgreSQL tends to excel in write-intensive scenarios due to its architecture. It uses a Multi-Version Concurrency Control (MVCC) system, which allows high levels of concurrency with minimal locking, thus enhancing write performance[6][7].
The performance of PostgreSQL for INSERT operations does not degrade significantly with the addition of indexes, as demonstrated in a test where PostgreSQL showed consistent performance even as more indexes were added[1].
MySQL:
MySQL can exhibit slower INSERT performance under certain conditions, especially when multiple indexes are involved. For instance, an increase in the number of indexes significantly increased the insert time in MySQL[1].
However, MySQL may perform well in environments where the data insertion pattern is straightforward and does not involve complex transactions or multiple concurrent write...
