What are the advantages/disadvantages between using utf8 as a charset against using latin1?
If utf can support more chars and is used consistently wouldn’t it always be the better choice? Is there any reason to choose latin1?
Thank you for visiting the Q&A section on Magenaut. Please note that all the answers may not help you solve the issue immediately. So please treat them as advisements. If you found the post helpful (or not), leave a comment & I’ll get back to you as soon as possible.
- Supports most languages, including RTL languages such as Hebrew.
- Non-ASCII characters will take more time to encode and decode, due to their more complex encoding scheme.
Non-ASCII characters will take more space as they may be stored using more than 1 byte (characters not in the first 127 characters of the ASCII characters set). A
VARCHAR(10)field may need up to 30 bytes to store some UTF8 characters.
Collations other than
utf8_binwill be slower as the sort order will not directly map to the character encoding order), and will require translation in some stored procedures (as variables default to
If you need to
JOINUTF8 and non-UTF8 fields, MySQL will impose a SEVERE performance hit. What would be sub-second queries could potentially take minutes if the fields joined are different character sets/collations.
If you don’t need to support non-Latin1 languages, want to achieve maximum performance, or already have tables using
latin1 has the advantage that it is a single-byte encoding, therefore it can store more characters in the same amount of storage space because the length of string data types in MySql is dependent on the encoding. The manual states that
To calculate the number of bytes used to store a particular CHAR,
VARCHAR, or TEXT column value, you must take into account the
character set used for that column and whether the value contains
multibyte characters. In particular, when using a utf8 Unicode
character set, you must keep in mind that not all characters use the
same number of bytes. utf8mb3 and utf8mb4 character sets can require
up to three and four bytes per character, respectively. For a
breakdown of the storage used for different categories of utf8mb3 or
utf8mb4 characters, see Section 10.9, “Unicode Support”.
Furthermore lots of string operations (such as taking substrings and collation-dependent compares) are faster with single-byte encodings.
In any case, latin1 is not a serious contender if you care about internationalization at all. It can be an appropriate choice when you will be storing known safe values (such as percent-encoded URLs).
@Ross Smith II, Point 4 is worth gold, meaning inconsistency between columns can be dangerous.
To add value to the already good answers, here is a small performance test about the difference between charsets:
A modern 2013 server, real use table with 20000 rows, no index on concerned column.
SELECT 4 FROM
subscribers WHERE 1 ORDER BY
time_utc_str; (4 is cache buster)
- varchar(20) CHARACTER SET latin1 COLLATION latin1_bin: 15ms
- varbinary(20): 17ms
- utf8_bin: 20ms
- utf8_general_ci: 23ms
For simple strings like numerical dates, my decision would be, when performance is concerned, using utf8_bin (CHARACTER SET utf8 COLLATE utf8_bin). This would prevent any adverse effects with other code that expects database charsets to be utf8 while still being sort of binary.
Fixed-length encodings such as latin-1 are always more efficient in terms of CPU consumption.
If the set of tokens in some fixed-length character set is known to be sufficient for your purpose at hand, and your purpose involves heavy and intensive string processing, with lots of LENGTH() and SUBSTR() stuff, then that could be a good reason for not using encodings such as UTF-8.
Oh, and BTW. Do not confuse, as you seem to do, between a character set and an encoding thereof. A character set is some defined set of writeable glyphs. The same character set can have multiple distinct encodings. The various versions of the unicode standard each constitute a character set. Each of them can be subjected to either UTF-8, UTF-16 and “UTF-32” (not an official name, but it refers to the idea of using full four bytes for any character) encoding, and the latter two can each come in a HOB-first or HOB-last flavour.