Postgres 17 vs 18 benchmarks are out, and the punchline isn’t a slam dunk for everyone. Postgres 18 isn’t a universal upgrade—the gains depend on workload, and PlanetScale’s analysis keeps that nuance front and center [1].
What the benchmarks try to measure The author of the benchmark blog emphasizes fairness and usefulness for DB engineers, aiming to make the work a practical tool rather than a headline grabber [1]. The takeaway: benchmarks should map to real-world concerns, not just numbers on a page [1].
Where the deltas show up The discussion makes it clear that performance improvements aren’t uniform. Some areas see benefits, others don’t, which matters when planning an upgrade path for production systems [1].
Community questions about upgrades Questions orbit upgrade implications and perceived performance deltas, with engineers weighing whether to move to Postgres 18 now or later depending on their workloads [1][2]. The conversations echo a common refrain: test against your own patterns before committing.
Actionable guidance for upgrades - Run workload-specific benchmarks to see where gains matter for you [1]. - Focus on latency and I/O hot paths that drive your service, not just aggregate throughput [1]. - Plan a staged upgrade with clear rollback and validation criteria to minimize risk [1].
Closing thought: benchmarks illuminate where to invest—keep mapping them to your unique workloads as you decide on upgrades [1].
References
Benchmarking Postgres 17 vs. 18
Author benchmarks PostgreSQL 17 versus 18; aims fair, useful results for DB engineers; invites questions from the community to discuss.
View sourceBenchmarking Postgres 17 vs. 18
Benchmarks Postgres versions 17 vs 18; performance, features, and implications discussed in article.
View source