Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

How to display complicated Chinese character: Biang. - Mailing list pgsql-general

From jian he
Subject How to display complicated Chinese character: Biang.
Date
Msg-id CACJufxFcCqgSQNcwD2uy=NagmohN2yEeymDwoV-EA1=QDyDZqQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: How to display complicated Chinese character: Biang.
List pgsql-general
Tree view

Inspired by this thread: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/011f01d8757e%24f5d69700%24e183c500%24%40ndensan.co.jp
Trying to display some special Chinese characters in Postgresql. For now I am using postgresql 15 beta1. The OS is Ubuntu 20.

localhost:5433 admin@test=# show LC_COLLATE;
+------------+
| lc_collate |
+------------+
| C.UTF-8    |
+------------+

localhost:5433 admin@test=# select icu_unicode_version();

+---------------------+

| icu_unicode_version |

+---------------------+

| 13.0                |

+---------------------+


icu_unicode_version is the extension function.

Wiki about character Biang: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biangbiang_noodles

quote:

The character's traditional and simplified forms were added to Unicode version 13.0 in March 2020 in the CJK Unified Ideographs Extension G block of the newly allocated Tertiary Ideographic Plane.[19] The corresponding Unicode characters are:


Unicode character info: https://www.compart.com/en/unicode/U+30EDD

query

with strings(s) as (
 values (U&'\+0030EDD')
)
select s,
  octet_length(s),
  char_length(s),
  (select count(*) from icu_character_boundaries(s,'en')) as graphemes from strings;

return

+-----+--------------+-------------+-----------+
|  s    | octet_length | char_length | graphemes |
+-----+--------------+-------------+-----------+
| ロD |            4      |           2          |         2 |
+-----+--------------+-------------+-----------+

Seems not right. graphemes should be 1?
And I am not sure values (U&'\+0030EDD') is the same as 𰻝.





--
 I recommend David Deutsch's <<The Beginning of Infinity>>

  Jian


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: unoptimized nested loops
Next
From: Tim Kelly
Date:
Subject: Re: unoptimized nested loops