On 12/8/15 2:26 PM, r...@seedsbydesign.com [firebird-support] wrote: > > I've used FB for years with ISO8859_1 charset and collation. > > Now I designing a new DB for a big app update in FB3 and wonder about > this charset and collation. > > For test purposes I am using UTF8 and UNICODE_AI_CI and I like that I > can now don't have to worry about casing comparisons nor accents or > other special characters. > > In fact though, all the data in will be in the regular english-us > alphabet with maybe a little in spanish for things like "japapeño", > but still all single byte chars. > > From what I read, only one byte is used for storing these characters, > so the same amount of space would be used as compared to ISO8859_1. > > What I am wondering before I get too far along, is there any downside > to using UTF8 and UNICODE_AI_CI? > > Regards, > > Rick > UTF-8 uses 1 byte for code points 0-127 (the basic ASCII Characters), and two or more bytes for other characters (like ñ), so you may take a small hit is data size. Code pages like ISO8859-1 represent all characters in a single byte (for those they represent).
-- Richard Damon
