|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
senthilbharathy
New User
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1
Location: Chennai
|
|
|
|
Hi,
We are using Unicode-16 BE and EBCIDIC fileds in our applications.
Unicode is taking 2 bytes to store each character.
But it was informed as cost reduction factor that we are going for Unicode.
Could some one please explain me the differences between UNICODE and EBCIDIC interms of cost/memory/performance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dick scherrer
Moderator Emeritus
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 19244
Location: Inside the Matrix
|
|
|
|
Hello and welcome to the forum,
| Quote: |
| But it was informed as cost reduction factor that we are going for Unicode. |
There was/is probably some qualification on the cost reduction claim that has been forgotten. . . Suggest someone review the material that made the claim. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Sample
Global Moderator
Joined: 06 Jun 2008
Posts: 8696
Location: Dubuque, Iowa, USA
|
|
|
|
| EBCDIC, being the "native" character set for the mainframe, is going to be about the most efficient way to handle characters. I can't imagine anyone thinking Unicode would be a cost reduction factor -- but it is amazing what consultants can sell clueless management on. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dick scherrer
Moderator Emeritus
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Posts: 19244
Location: Inside the Matrix
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
| but it is amazing what consultants can sell clueless management on. |
Heh heh heh. . .
We had an Executive Vice President at one place that had the reputation of being only as good as the last salesman that left his office. . . Every time a presentation was made, he was ready to jump on it with both feet. Took several of us to keep him straight 
Fortunately, he did not last long as the head of IT.
These days these are so many "managers" who really, really want to hear they can get what they want/need for very little $ and in very little time. Being that naive, i am not sure why they were made managers in the first place . . . OK, maybe i do. . . Butt-kissin' works even better than before.
d |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anuj Dhawan
Superior Member
Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 6250
Location: Mumbai, India
|
|
|
|
Okay, so it's not only me who deals with "them"... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GuyC
Senior Member
Joined: 11 Aug 2009
Posts: 1281
Location: Belgium
|
|
|
|
Both XML and some (parts of) databases are native Unicode. Programs/Applications that do more moving than calculating data might be more performant if you avoid the conversion unicode => ebcdic => unicode.
Besides Unicode does not take two bytes to store each characters. In fact most "characters" that EBCDIC can handle are also only 1 byte in Unicode. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
