Re: Unicode comment on Postgres vs Sql Server

I didn't have proper knowledge about the UTF8 format, thanks.
I originally meant nvarchar & nchar, which is basically varchar & char that
supports Unicode regardless of the database encoding.

On 3/2/08, Tino Wildenhain <tino(at)wildenhain(dot)de> wrote:
>
> Swaminathan Saikumar wrote:
> > I am familiar with MS Sql Server & just started using Postgres.
> > For storing Unicode, Sql Server uses nvarchar/char for unicode, and uses
> > char/varchar for ASCII.
> > Postgres has this encoding setting at the database level.
> >
> > I am using UTF8 Unicode for most of my data, but there is some data that
> > I know for sure will be ASCII. However, this is also stored as UTF8,
> > using up more space.
>
>
> This is wrong - ASCII is a subset of UTF8 and therefore uses
> exactly one byte for every ASCII char.
>
> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UTF-8 for example.
>
>
> >
> > At first sight, it looks like the the more granular level design is
> > better. Any comments? If you agree, does it make sense to add this as a
> > new datatype to Postgres?
>
>
> Which new datatype?
>
> Regards
>
> Tino
>
>