Re: Unicode vs SQL_ASCII DBs
От | Kris Jurka |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Unicode vs SQL_ASCII DBs |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.33.0402020514070.22628-100000@leary.csoft.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Unicode vs SQL_ASCII DBs ("John Sidney-Woollett" <johnsw@wardbrook.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Unicode vs SQL_ASCII DBs
Re: Unicode vs SQL_ASCII DBs |
Список | pgsql-general |
On Mon, 2 Feb 2004, John Sidney-Woollett wrote: > Kris, thanks for you feedback. Can you give me any further info on the > questions below? > > Kris Jurka said: > >> 3) If I want accented characters to sort correctly, must I select > >> UNICODE > >> (or the appropriate ISO 8859 char set) over SQL_ASCII? > > > > You are confusing encoding with locale. Locales determines the correct > > sort order and you must choose an encoding that works with your locale. > > Except that in my test, the two differently encoded databases were in the > same 7.4.1 cluster with the same locale, yet they sorted the *same* data > differently - implying the encoding is a factor. Right, note the "and you must choose an encoding that works with your locale." clause. A SQL_ASCII encoding and a UTF-8 locale don't work. > I basically need "english" sorting, and accented character support without > any JDBC access/conversion problems. Do you think that my current DB > locale (en_GB.UTF-8) and UNICODE encoded database the best solution? Or > can you suggest something better? If you need "english" sorting like "en_GB" then that is the best option, but if you just need regular sorting the C locale might be better. It is sometimes confusing how en_US (I assume GB is similar) sorts strings with spaces and punctuation and so on. Kris Jurka
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: