Hi Harry,
Dunno about the performance penalty, but so far I am happy with LATIN1 dbase
system (RH and Trustix). Even with cyrillic characters. Then again, I work
with browser interfaces and it's not really up to me what encoding the client
has or has not installed. <if western, charset=iso-iso-8859-1, if fellow
russki harasoo charset=windows-1251> is, I guess, a good bet. It's a windows
world, so far.
Soviet KOI-X X, KOI8-r, KOI8-RU, Mac Cyrillic (Standard), CyrWin Cyrillic and
the rest of the soup ...
Some experience and my half a pea.
BR,
Aarni
On Tuesday 16 March 2004 12:43, you wrote:
> Hello
>
> I am just setting out on a new project, having recently switched to
> PostgreSQL.
>
> My immediate requirements would be satisfied with ISO-8859-1 (LATIN-1)
> encoding, but it is conceivable that, if things go really well, somewhere
> in the future my character encoding requirements will broaden.
>
> So I am tempted to specify UNICODE form the outset, and be done with it.
>
> But I cannot help wondering how much of a performance penalty this entails.
>
> If the performance hit is not significant, I shall be happy to stick with
> UNICODE.
>
> But if anyone has any strong views (or experience) on this issue I shall be
> very grateful for some feedback.
>
> Many thanks.
>
> Harry Mantheakis
> London, UK
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
--
-------------------------------------------------
Aarni Ruuhimäki | Megative Tmi | KYMI.com
Pääsintie 26 | 45100 Kouvola | FINLAND
-------------------------------------------------
This is a bugfree broadcast to you from a linux system.