Peter Eisentraut said:
> Am Donnerstag, 22. April 2004 13:17 schrieb John Sidney-Woollett:
> You get your strings sorted in binary order of the UTF-8 encoding, which
> is probably not very interesting, but it's possible.
Agreed.
>> Is it also true that if LC_COLLATE != 'C' that indexes cannot be used
>> for LIKE comparisons (and is this also true for en_US.iso885915)?
> No, see <http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.4/static/indexes-opclass.html>.
I wish I understood what this page actually was trying to say.
Is it saying that varchar_pattern_ops sorts according to the 'C' locale
regardless of LC_COLLATE, and that varchar_ops sorts according to the
current value of LC_COLLATE?
> This setup will result in UTF-8 characters being sorted by the system
> thinking
> they are actually ISO-8859-15 characters. So the result will be random at
> best.
Actually the LC_COLLATE is currently 'C' not as I reported ISO-8859-1.
What would be a correct LC_COLLATE value for my database if we want to
primarily service ISO-8859-1, but allow for
cyrillic/chinese/japanese/korean characters too and have them sorting and
indexing correctly? We are building a multilanguage website...
ls /usr/share/locale produces:
ca de en@boldquot en_SE fi hr ko no sk zh_TW
cs el en_GB en_US fr it locale.alias pl sv
da en en@quot es gl ja nl pt_BR tr
Thanks for anymore info.
John Sidney-Woollett
