| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joel Matthew <rees(at)ddcom(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Datatype sizes; a space and speed issue? |
| Date: | 2004-06-23 06:22:15 |
| Message-ID: | 27788.1087971735@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Joel Matthew <rees(at)ddcom(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> Does that mean that PostGreSQL fixes character width at thirty-two bits,
> or that it uses UTF-8, or that it just stores what it gets?
We store text data in the form indicated by the database encoding
setting. UCS-32 is not a supported encoding, but UTF-8 is --- among
others.
> (Checked chapter 8.3 in the manual, didn't see the answer there. Not
> that I really want to know. With Unicode, trying to optimize record
> sizes for char/text fields is a little like trying to play Russian
> Roulette.
No, it's entirely like pointless. You just don't know how many bytes
will be taken up by N characters.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-06-23 06:39:49 | Re: Do we need more emphasis on backup? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-06-23 06:17:13 | Re: Datatype sizes; a space and speed issue? |