Re: Modified UTF-8 or UTF-16 for temporary Clobs?

[Oystein Grovlen - Sun Norway]

Kristian Waagan wrote:
However, using UTF-16 imposes space overhead when operating on Clobs 
with US-ASCII characters, in fact the overhead is 100% (each character 
represented by two bytes instead of one). For some other languages 
(and/or character sets), using UTF-16 reduces the space requirements 
(two versus three bytes).

As long as this is just used for active LOBs (i.e, LOBs updated by 
active transactions), I do not think the extra disk usage should be a 
major concern.  It would normally be just a small fraction of the total 
disk space used by the database.

--
Øystein