Sure, here&#x27;s  the pastebin of the postgres one:
<a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;pastebin.com&#x2F;Phc8KnYU" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;pastebin.com&#x2F;Phc8KnYU</a><p>I thought I was doing something wrong, so I asked on SO:<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;stackoverflow.com&#x2F;questions&#x2F;32755348&#x2F;group-by-count-query-takes-a-long-time" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;stackoverflow.com&#x2F;questions&#x2F;32755348&#x2F;group-by-count-q...</a><p>This is a very simple example, but I always run into major performance issues with Postgres. Some of them are my fault, from not knowing that array aggregation is a slow operation.<p>MySQL advantages for me are that there is an actual UPSERT operation (an inferior version of which might be added to Postgres 9.5), that the CLI is miles ahead, and that it&#x27;s much faster for a small number of tables with a lot of data and with non-complex operations.