Microsoft is very COM-based for its actual data access methods.... and COM uses BSTRs that are BOM-less UTF-16. Because of that, the actual storage format of any database ends up irrelevant since it will be converted to UTF-16 anyway. Given that this is what the data layers do, performance is certainly better if there does not have to be an extra call to the Windows MutliByteToWideChar to convert UTF-8 to UTF-16. So from a Windows perspective, not only is it no trouble, but it also the best possible solution! In any case, I know plenty of web people who *do* encode their strings in SQL Server databases as UTF-8 for web applications, since UTF-8 is their preference. They are willing to take the hit of "converting themselves" because when data is being read it is faster to go through no conversions at all. Michael > ---------- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED][SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 7:55 AM > To: Unicode List > Cc: Unicode List; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Java, SQL, Unicode and Databases > > > > I think that this is also true for DB2 using UTF-8 as the database > encoding. > From an application perspective, MS SQL Server is the one that gives us > the most > trouble, because it doesn't support UTF-8 as a database encoding for char, > etc. > Joe > > Kenneth Whistler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 06/22/2000 06:42:20 PM > > To: "Unicode List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (bcc: Joe > Ross/Tivoli > Systems) > Subject: Re: Java, SQL, Unicode and Databases > > > > > Jianping responded: > > > > > Tex, > > > > Oracle doesn't have special requirement for datatype in JDBC driver if > you use > UTF8 as database > > character set. In this case, all the text datatype in JDBC will support > Unicode data. > > > > The same thing is, of course, true for Sybase databases using UTF-8 > at the database character set, accessing them through a JDBC driver. > > But I think Tex's question is aimed at the much murkier area > of what the various database vendors' strategies are for dealing > with UTF-16 Unicode as a datatype. In that area, the answers for > what a cross-platform application vendor needs to do and for how > JDBC drivers might abstract differences in database implementations > are still unclear. > > --Ken > > >
RE: Java, SQL, Unicode and Databases
Michael Kaplan (Trigeminal Inc.) Fri, 23 Jun 2000 08:44:40 -0700
- Java, SQL, Unicode and Databases Tex Texin
- Re: Java, SQL, Unicode and Databases Jianping Yang
- Re: Java, SQL, Unicode and Databases Kenneth Whistler
- Re: Java, SQL, Unicode and Databases Tex Texin
- Re: Java, SQL, Unicode and Databases Joe_Ross
- Re: Java, SQL, Unicode and Databases Michael Kaplan (Trigeminal Inc.)
- Re: Java, SQL, Unicode and Databases Tex Texin
- Re: Java, SQL, Unicode and Databases Tex Texin
- Re: Java, SQL, Unicode and Databases Joe_Ross
- RE: Java, SQL, Unicode and Databases Joe_Ross
- RE: Java, SQL, Unicode and Databases Michael Kaplan (Trigeminal Inc.)