Jake:
> Sorry, "static text" is not right. What I meant was that if you need to perform more
> complicated comparisons on the text (substring matches, as in a LIKE SQL statement),
> the overhead involved in UTF-8 can be significant (20 or 30% slower than with UCS-2).
>
> If it is a simple "yes or no" match on the text, it is not so bad. And of course, UTF-8
> sure beats ISO 2022.
Hmm... is other timing information available? In reality (in our
case) UTF-8 is not competing against UCS-2, but against EUC and
ISO8859. Based on what you are telling me, I assume it's probably
20-30% slower than ISO8859 also, but how about EUC?
It seems to me that UTF-8 should not be very different from
EUC in performance (since both are multibyte encoding). Or
am I missing something?
Thanks,
Steve
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:31 EDT