Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question appears to be off-topic because it lacks sufficient information to diagnose the problem. Describe your problem in more detail or include a minimal example in the question itself.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
All these ascii characters from 128 to 158 are not getting saved in database properly.
These characters were inserted into database throu jboss(java service) application from UI into sybase database.
These characters were saved as '?' in database.
Java is using utf code set. and database is using iso_1
ASCII does not have the € character, so any conversion from Unicode text to ASCII should convert it to something like ?. Converting to ISO-8859-1 would share the same problem, so you probably want to consider changing the collation on the database to a suitable one for the character set you need to include.
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 6 years ago.
Improve this question
I noticed that Slack uses ID's of the form U023BECGF, and not the standard f3a7a018-02da-4cdb-944c-44d073536648 you often see
What is the reasoning for this?
The code you put in your question (U023BECGF) is not a valid or complete UUID. UUIDs are 16 bytes (octets) which are represented as 32 characters of hexadcimal as standard: RFC: https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4122.txt
Under no encoding is U023BECGF a representation of a 16 bytes; it's too short.
It is plausable that these keys could be incorperated into a UUID but they are not one in themselvs.
The usual reason for smaller fields is storing less data.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Questions concerning problems with code you've written must describe the specific problem — and include valid code to reproduce it — in the question itself. See SSCCE.org for guidance.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I have a document with words as
spring
season
bank
Now I want to check if these words for present in several documents, lets say 10 documents. Input and the list of documents should be user defined. can anyone suggest me how to proceed?
what about grep?
grep -REic 'spring|season|bank' file1.txt file2.txt ...
check out man grep for more options.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Is this a perpetually denied feature request or something specific to Postgres?
I've read that Postgre has potentially higher performance than InnoDB but also potentially larger chance of less serialization (I apologize that I don't have a source, and please give that statement a wide berth because of my noobity and memory) and wonder if it might have something to do with that.
Postgres is amazingly functional compared to MySQL, and that's why I've switched. Already I've cut down lines of code & unnecessary replication immensely.
This is just a small annoyance, but I'm curious if it's considered unnecessary because of the UPDATE then INSERT workaround, or if it's very difficult to develop (possibly vs the perceived added value) like boost::lockfree::queue's ability to pass "anything" (, or if it's something else).
PostgreSQL committers are working on a patch to introduce "INSERT ... ON DUPLICATE KEY", which is functionally equivalent to an "upsert". MySQL and Oracle already have functionality (in Oracle it is called "MERGE")
A link to the PostgreSQL archives where the functionality is discussed and a patch introduced: http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAM3SWZThwrKtvurf1aWAiH8qThGNMZAfyDcNw8QJu7pqHk5AGQ#mail.gmail.com
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
In Postgresql, the hstore and json datatypes seem to have very similar use cases. When would you choose to use one vs. the other? Initial thoughts:
You can nest with json; you can't with hstore
Functions for parsing json won't be available until 9.3
The json type is just a string. There are no built in functions to parse it. The only thing to be gained when using it is the validity checking.
Edit for those downvoting: This was written when 9.3 still didn't exist.It is correct for 9.2. Also the question was different. Check the edit history.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
How can I convert unstructured data into structured data? For example email contacts, from an unstructured text, to a structured format.
Are there any algorithms to do this?
There's no generic algorithm to "take unstructured data and convert it to structured data", no. It's highly dependent on what the possible range of input is, and what the desired structure is, and what conversions need to be applied, etc.
The class of problem is called "parsing": you need to construct a parser for the specific inputs you expect, and use that parser to generate structure from what it discovers about the input you get.
Your programming language will likely have parsing libraries available to assist with constructing a specific parser.