Arne Gehlhaar wrote:
Well, this would only be an issue for people that don't read the manuals. I.e. people new to SapDB. In my opinion, excpected behaviour is more important than size for these people.Elias Martenson wrote:Wouldn't is be a good idea to set _UNICODE=YES and DEFAULT_CODE=UNICODE as default for future versions of SapDB? I believe this would solve a lot of problems people are having, especially for people using Java.I don't think that this is a very good idea, because unicode is twice the size (2 byte) as ASCII. For the system tables this might not be a problem, but as soon as you store a large amount of data you might run into size problems. I find performance and efficiency more important in real life applications than the ease of the configuration task.
By the way, what about the performace for string compares (str1 = str2) or (str1 like 'xzy%') for unicode columns? Is there a difference? Can unicode columns be indexed?
I believe that the descision _not_ to use unicode should be an active one, since it's much more likely that unicode is what you want. It's actually very few people who are prepared to back off from unicode in order to save the space, once they realise the implications of 8-bit character columns.
Well, this is just my opinion and i say it here in order to spawn a healthy discussion on the subject. :-)
Regards
Elias
_______________________________________________
sapdb.general mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://listserv.sap.com/mailman/listinfo/sapdb.general
