Özkan Pakdil 🦖

I was reading this https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/45b4b689-0e78-4d30-a5f9-1a39d01ab2b7@ww-it.cn it is worth to share

GB18030 (China’s mandatory standard) uses 2 bytes per Chinese character vs. UTF-8’s 3—saving 33% storage. Legacy apps rely on it; new systems gain efficiency. UTF-8 rules globally, but regional mandates matter.

#PostgreSQL

Re: Retiring some encodings?

Hi Michael > Yeah, that's a good point. I would also question what's the benefit > in using GB18030 over …

PostgreSQL Mailing List Archives
May 25 at 12:49pmWeb
Show threadAndreas Scherbaum4d ago

@thejvmbender "most Chinese characters", not all. Having ASCII (8 bit) was hard enough to deal with, is the saved space of one byte worth the overhead otherwise? The implementation caused problems before: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/aC68DmpyYer87rau%40paquier.xyz

Note that I'm not saying to remove it at that point, especially if it is in good use. I'm just questioning if saving one byte is really worth it.

Retiring some encodings?

Hi all, $subject is something that has been on my mind for a few weeks now, following the recent events …

PostgreSQL Mailing List Archives
Show threadwaldi4d ago
@thejvmbender No, local stuff does not matter if it breaks the whole thing. And you are free to stuff GB18030 into unrestricted 8bit values.