On 03.03.2008 10:27 CE(S)T, Anders Karlsson wrote:
> [a lot about why sorting unicode is complicated]
If you want to
accknowledge exact matching, and say any character, accented / unlauted
etc, is different from any other character, specifiy a binary comparison:
SELECT * FROM phonebook WHERE BINARY name = 'Handel';
Hm, not quite compatible.
The solution I found is using this:
SELECT * FROM table WHERE column = 'value' COLLATE ...;
But still there binary collation has a different name on MySQL and
SQLite. PostgreSQL doesn't support the COLLATE clause, although part of
the SQL-92 standard.
But you din't quite get my actual problem. You said that sorting Unicode
things is complicated. I agree. I can live with a trade-off for sorting.
But I cannot accept incorrect selection of records. When I want
something that I can specify exactly, I only want to get that back,
nothing else. The same counts for uniqueness constrains.
I've asked a freind who could test the matter with PostgreSQL. He said,
it works exactly as expected. Sorting is unicode-like, selection is
precise. Why can't MySQL do that, too? Is it so hard to distinguish
sorting and selecting?
--
Yves Goergen "LonelyPixel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Visit my web laboratory at http://beta.unclassified.de
--
MySQL General Mailing List
For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
