Dating null set Sex video chat with girls with out register

C383C289 is an example of what I call "double encoding" because of the two 'wrong' conversions from latin1 to utf8.The resulting SELECT (at least for European text) looks exactly like what you INSERTed.

dating null set-82dating null set-77

Thus, xxx_unicode_520_ci collations are based on UCA 5.2.0 weight keys: https://

Collations without the "520", are based on the older UCA 4.0.0.

Continuing the case, let's do a SELECT: ⚈ For utf8 column, the C383C289 is converted to latin1 é (C3A9) for sending across the wire to the client.

⚈ For latin1 column, no conversion is performed, so, again, C389 goes across the wire.

⚈ The client receives the two bytes C389, thinking it is é (because of SET NAMES).

However, the rest of your application is thinking 'utf8', it sees it as é.Or you started with 4.1 (or later) and "latin1 / latin1_swedish_ci" and failed to notice that you were asking for trouble.Today, it's pretty safe to simply lay down the law and say "Use utf8 for all text." If you have version 5.5.3 or later, "Use utf8mb4 for all text." Sure, there are other character sets, and they are useful if you have a narrow focus. Another take on the History Best practice is to go completely utf8mb4.There are 3 dimensions to character set problems: ⚈ How the client's bytes are encoded when INSERTing, and what encoding you want when SELECTing; ⚈ What SET NAMES you use (or what the default is); ⚈ The CHARACTER SET on the column definition.All is well if the SET NAMES agrees with the encoding of the bytes in the Client.If a source character does not exist in the target encoding (example: when converting a Chinese character from utf8mb4 to latin1), a "? The main thing that can go wrong is that SET NAMES can disagree with the Client's bytes.

Tags: , ,