| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Frank Joerdens <frank(at)joerdens(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Multibyte encoding vs. SQL_ASCII vs. locales and European languages |
| Date: | 2002-01-29 18:54:04 |
| Message-ID: | 15392.1012330444@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Frank Joerdens <frank(at)joerdens(dot)de> writes:
> What about the performance penalty that you're warned about with
> locales (in the admin guide)?
You pay it if you don't select C locale at initdb time, true.
> Does multibyte support entail the same penalty?
AFAIR, MULTIBYTE doesn't kill LIKE optimization, but it does incur
a generalized performance penalty on all string-mashing operators.
Never tried to measure the size of the penalty; perhaps Tatsuo or
Hiroshi would know.
> If not, then multibyte encoding, providing a superset of the
> locale functionality (correct?), would be better than locales, right?
MULTIBYTE is *not* a superset of LOCALE; they are independently
enablable features. Offhand I don't think they are both interesting
for the same character sets.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-01-29 19:02:34 | Re: Upgrade 7.0.3 -> 7.1.3 problems! |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-01-29 18:33:00 | Re: 7.2 RPMs (Re: [HACKERS] PostgreSQL v7.2rc2 Released) |