There has been a lot of talk lately about PostgreSQL and what MySQL can learn from the PostgreSQL clan. We would like to look at the reverse of that. This article is a bit of a complement to Joshua Drake's What MySQL (and really, Sun) can learn from PostgreSQL.
First of all a lot of staunch advocates of PostgreSQL wonder what exactly is it that MySQLers see in that beast of a database or as Martin Mickos likes to call it The Ferrari of databases?
For example, as Magnus Hagander pointed out in A new MySQL gotcha and we pointed out in SQL Math Idiosyncracies, MySQL's casting behavior is shall we say odd. I won't even recount our frustrations with using their ODBC driver with the MySQL 5.0 incarnations, but that could be ignorance on our part. Zack Urlocker of Sun has espoused, the upcoming MySQL 5.1 will have no bugs so perhaps this along with other bug complaints is a moot point.
So why do people choose MySQL time and time again over PostgreSQL and why is PostgreSQL sometimes a hard sell? Some of what we are going to say is a bit tongue-in-cheek so please don't take offense.
Being pervasive and ubiquitous is a huge selling point.
How did MySQL get to that point and what tricks can PostgreSQL borrow from that experience?
PostgreSQL has a lot of selling points that MySQL lacks, but this is a talk about why MySQL is so great, so we'll save that talk for another day.
PostgreSQL clan is heavily loaded with geeks and the first thing that comes to at least my mind is geek when trying to summarize the generic face of a PostgreSQL user. This is a good thing from a development standpoint and for attracting great developers, but is bad when a large constituency you are trying to sell to are not geeks and they perceive your database as a thing that only a geek can use effectively. While we would like to think otherwise and at least think that its in vogue to be a geek, most people are not geeks. We need to sell more to the otherside of the fence - because like it or not - they are often the ones that make the decisions.
Martin Mickos is riding on what Leo likes to call People who look alike play together rule of social behavior. He is forced to wear a suit like most money-decision making people and looks comfortable in that outfit. He looks like a CEO. He might be a geek inside but he covers it well, and he gives you the polished feel that he can endure the torture of a CEO recounting his golf game or bragging about his greatness. Why is this important? Isn't it all an act? Yes it is an act, but it sends the message - I know how to act right - when to open my mouth and when to keep it shut. This is incredibly comforting to a generic CEO, CFO or CIO type. Yes it does often come down to he got the contract not because his technology was better but because he had a better suit on, got drunk on his own cool-aid and could finish a sentence without saying "Uhmm".
Martin Mickos balances Michael "Monty" Widenius disposition well, whereas a lot of PostgreSQL folk look and sound like Monty with very few balancing Martin's to level the see-saw.
We don't have a very strong prominent non-geek face to offset this imbalance. We need a CEO friendly imposter. I would say the closest are some of the EnterpriseDb folk, but EnterpriseDb is a commercial offering so that can only get the clan so far.
It would help if core PostgreSQL had a prim and proper looking figure or a comedian like Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, Marc Fleury (founder of JBOSS), or geekesses in disguise like Kim Polese (the woman behind SpikeSource, Marimba, and Java) who exudes subtle persuasion abilities or a quietly confident woman such as Diane Greene, CEO and CoFounder of VMWare. Some PostgreSQL folks come to mind that can be molded into some of those type figures, but they still have that geek suit on (the T-shirt and the long hair that appeals to geeky sysadmins who are not always allowed to make decisions). Steve Jobs is a geek, but one with style. His brat geek kid who never grew up and with an obsession with clean interfaces that look good is great marketing. Similarly Larry Ellison's farcical obsession with wardrobe, racing, womanizing and destroying competitors is equally entertaining. Marc Fleury seems to be a compromise between the Steve and Larry personalities and some others mixed in. He has an air of mystique, but he knows when to behave as well.
Kim Polese perfectly complemented the advanced geekism of James Gosling who wanted to call Java a stupid name like Oak.
Diane Greene is an equally neat woman. She is not pushy, doesn't quite look like everyone else, but enough to make one feel comfortable, and she has that look that just screams - I can lead an army of ships into war. She balances out the more behind the scenes personality of her husband, Mendel Rosenblum, co-founder and chief scientist of VMWare.
Bill Gates (please don't throw stones at me for listing Bill Gates as one of those we respect). We for the most part like Bill Gate's and admire him. Both he and Diane Greene are what I shall refer to as anchors. Another rule of social behavior is that people like to hang around anchors. Anchors are those people who have a horned or natural instinct for feeling out what makes their audience comfortable and becoming it. They don't quite dress like their audience, but are not vastly different enough to be scary. They stand out just enough to look different, but not too much. They seem as content being by themselves as they do with being with other people. You only need to look at video of Bill Gates last full day to see what an anchor he is.
A lot of PostgreSQL folk, from a cursory observation, are suffering from some form of geekism and while it is not something that is easy to cure or should be cured - we need to offset it more with at least people who can hide their disorder or highlight those who have it to such a ridiculous level that it serves as a natural parody.
Symptoms of this disorder include
Now this one we wouldn't suggest bothering with, although we should probably dissect this thoroughly to understand better what value people see in this and what substitutions can be made and pointed out that PostgreSQL offers. Granted the camp is divided here. Personally the fact that some things are supported on one MySQL storage engine and not another MySQL storage engine makes MySQL somewhat unpleasant to work with. As Tom mentioned in his The Value of MySQL Storage Engines I suppose there is some charm that we just can't appreciate.