> Vander Clock Stephane wrote:
> > no, you can store in iso-8859-1 ALL the UTF8 char :)
>
> No this is incorrect. What you can store in ISO-8859-1 are
> all the UTF8 codepoints not characters. Once you understand
> the difference you will also understand that to do so means
> that none of your indexes, sorting etc will work properly.
>

of course i was speaking about codepoint ! not (yet) so crazy to
thing i can put all the symbols in earth in 1 bytes :)
my index work perfectly, my sorting no (and off course) !
this why i write this paper about utf8 if not i will stay with
my ISO88598_1 column and everything will be perfect

> If you want simple byte storage and to hell with proper
> unicode character collation then use character set OCTETS.
>

OCTECTS or iso8859_1 it's the same in fact ... still need to go like
you say in the hell of proper unicode character collation in
both case :(

> If you want to Firebird to collate your characters as is
> appropriate for a given locale then use the character-set
> relevant to that locale or use UTF8 to get full unicode
> support and wear the cost.
>

i not understand, you spend so much in developpement to win speed,
you make that you can even optimize some stuff like the TcpRemoteBufferSize
and here i gave you an option to make your system 2x more faster "easily"
and i have as an answer "wear the cost" ??

what the probleme to say that we can define the size of the UTF8 varchar
column
in BYTES (and in fact 80% of the utf8 char we use in europe need only 1
byte)
instead of "4 bytes" by char ! and even 4 bytes is not enalf for my sci
database
where klingon empire have their account !

Keep utf8 like it is if you want, but why not add a new charset like
UTF8_SVDC that is completely egual to UTF8 except that it's considere that
when i write varchar(250) = 250 bytes (or 250 code point if you prefere) ?

stephane


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]