I have a Windows 7 machine running MySQL database and I have a Linux machine running PostgreSQL database.

Preferably I would like to have only 1 machine housing both database as currently they are co-located in a datacenter which counts the electricty power and space used.

Would it be favorable to run 2 different database (MySQL and PostgreSQL) or convert the MySQL to a PostgreSQL?

  • What does the usage look like? CPU, Memory and Disk I/O? If you have resources to spare then you can certainly run both engines on the same machine (apparently not server class). But if you are running just two databases then I don't think you would have any issues running them on one. – Jonathan Fite Jan 2 '19 at 13:03
  • Don't forget it's going to cost you time and money to convert from MySQL to Postgres. Personally, I would like to host all my apps on Postgres. You could run a single cluster with multiple databases. But like I said this will take time for someone to do. And time is money. – Colin 't Hart Jan 7 '19 at 10:46

Following up on @JonathanFite's comment, current and future resource usage is critical to answer this question, specifically memory capacity and I/O write performance.

Rule of thumb: if both databases can fit in RAM with room to spare, run both engines. If memory is limited, consider migrating the smaller database of the two, to the engine running the larger one.

Because you're most concerned about hosting costs, it will probably work out cheaper to consolidate, but you may have to increase your memory down the line.

| improve this answer | |

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.