Hi Simon,
On 4/9/2011 12:01 AM, Simon Slavin wrote:
Have you tried speed tests on your platform ? It's hard to tell which
will be faster because it depends on what language and OS you're using
that interacts with SQLite. So if you have your schema designed and
any part of your application
On 3 Sep 2011, at 4:27pm, Mohit Sindhwani wrote:
> for our data, we can get savings in the region of 25% - 33% in the case of
> strings being stored in a language that does require 3bytes/ character. So,
> given that, we should explore UTF-16 in more detail. However, we also have a
> lot of
Hi Igor,
Thanks for your advice and guidance.
On 1/9/2011 11:57 PM, Igor Tandetnik wrote:
On 9/1/2011 10:24 AM, Mohit Sindhwani wrote:
On the other hand, the other language that we are storing seems to
require 3 bytes in UTF-8. Given that, it would appear that using UTF-8
would be a better
Hi Igor,
On 1/9/2011 11:57 PM, Igor Tandetnik wrote:
On 9/1/2011 10:24 AM, Mohit Sindhwani wrote:
I understand that the database could be either UTF-8 or UTF-16 - but
that would apply to the full DB not to a single column, right?
Right.
*many useful answers snipped*
Thank you very much!!
On 9/1/2011 10:24 AM, Mohit Sindhwani wrote:
I understand that the database could be either UTF-8 or UTF-16 - but
that would apply to the full DB not to a single column, right?
Right.
If that
is the case, would it not make the database larger if we had a lot of
content that was originally
Hi All,
I apologize first if this question has its roots in my partial
understanding of unicode and the various UTF-encodings. We're using
Windows CE and SQLite3 - so far, we have only used ASCII data. Now,
we're going to store data in other languages and feel the need to go
towards
6 matches
Mail list logo
