Thread: problems with PgAdmin and database encoding.

Hi.

I've a database with UNICODE encoding. All is right. The programmers
work's fine with pg-access, pgadmin and phppgadmin combination
(linux+windoze).
But this morning one of the programmer's tell me about PgAdmin (under
windows, and the last revision), have a problem modifing a field of any
table. This is the error of the log:
ERROR:  Unicode >= 0x10000 is not supoorted

This error is reported when she make a "cut&paste" of information from a
microsoft word document, and cut this into the table.

The postgresql version is 7.2.
Anybody can help me please?

--
Manuel Trujillo         manueltrujillo@dorna.es
Technical Engineer      http://www.motograndprix.com
Dorna Sports S.L.       +34 93 4702864

First of all, I have somewhat fixed my locking problems from before, at
least to the point that the app is mostly usable.  I will tweak it more
later, when I have some more free time to myself :)

Now:
    I use an english alphabet exclusively in an app I am working on
for another customer.  If I need to put non-english characters, I use the
HTML encoding functions from HTML::Entities in Perl.  This causes me to
store strings like:

You’re antique vase cost ¥5.000.000

Okay, you get the picture any way.

Since I am using a strict alphabet like this, would it be faster to build
PostgreSQL without Multibyte support?  Or has the indexing, etc. been
optimized so much for multibyte that it is actually faster than single
byte stuff?

- brian


Wm. Brian McCane                    | Life is full of doors that won't open
Search http://recall.maxbaud.net/   | when you knock, equally spaced amid those
Usenet http://freenews.maxbaud.net/ | that open when you don't want them to.
Auction http://www.sellit-here.com/ | - Roger Zelazny "Blood of Amber"

> An incredible amount of thank's for you and the PgAdmin Team ;)
> All work fine now. Thank you for your quickly answer, and for you and
> the rest of the team for the great work with PgAdmin.
> Thank you.
Manuel Trujillo
> Have a nice day ;-)
> TooManySecrets

You are welcome.
Jean-Michel

Brian McCane <bmccane@mccons.net> writes:
> Since I am using a strict alphabet like this, would it be faster to build
> PostgreSQL without Multibyte support?  Or has the indexing, etc. been
> optimized so much for multibyte that it is actually faster than single
> byte stuff?

A non-multibyte build will certainly be faster than a multibyte build.
How much is hard to say, especially without any specific operation mix
in mind.  We'd be interested to hear what sort of results you get ...

            regards, tom lane