From: | "Priem, Alexander" <ap(at)cict(dot)nl> |
---|---|
To: | 'Tom Lane' <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Unicode + LC_COLLATE |
Date: | 2004-04-22 14:37:17 |
Message-ID: | 2A07EC2D0BC2774AAD6F74769F60D52A08330B@ahmose.cict_ad.nl |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
> C locale basically means "sort by the byte sequence values". It'll do
> something self-consistent, but maybe not what you'd like for UTF8
> characters.
>
> Does that sort rationally at all? I should think you'd need to specify
> an LC_COLLATE setting that's designed for UTF8 encoding, not 8859-15.
>
> If you only ever store characters that are in 7-bit ASCII then none of
> this will affect you, and you can get away with broken combinations of
> encoding and locale. But if you'd like to sort characters outside the
> minimal ASCII set then you need to get it right ...
But if you use anything other than C, you can't use indexes in Like-clauses,
right?
Would lc-collate=C be bad in combination with UNICODE encoding? What
lc-collate setting would you recommend for UNICODE encoding which will
provide good sorting for all (most) common languages? (dutch, english,
french, german)
Alexander Priem
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | scott.marlowe | 2004-04-22 14:59:17 | Re: 7.3.4 on Linux: UPDATE .. foo=foo+1 degrades massivly |
Previous Message | Michael Chaney | 2004-04-22 14:34:36 | Re: FW: Postgres alongside MS SQL Server |