Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Unicode + LC_COLLATE

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: johnsw(at)wardbrook(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Unicode + LC_COLLATE
Date: 2004-04-22 13:31:04
Message-ID: 25605.1082640664@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general
"John Sidney-Woollett" <johnsw(at)wardbrook(dot)com> writes:
> Does anyone know what the effect of --lc-collate=C --encoding=UNICODE will
> be for sorts (and indexes?) when a multibyte unicode character is
> encountered?

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.

> Our database is UNICODE with LC_COLLATE=en_US.iso885915.

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 ...

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-general by date

Next:From: Oleg BartunovDate: 2004-04-22 13:33:55
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Restoring a Databases that features tserach2
Previous:From: John Sidney-WoollettDate: 2004-04-22 13:26:58
Subject: Re: Unicode + LC_COLLATE

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group