'Unicode' vs. 'String' with SQLAlchemy and PostgreSQL

Question

I apologize in advance for my lack of knowledge concerning character encoding.

My question is: are there any inherent advantages/disadvantages to using the 'Unicode' type, rather than the 'String' type, when storing data in PostgreSQL using SQLAlchemy (or vice-versa)? If so, would you mind elaborating?

@CraigRinger Yessir. However, your asking that also makes me curious as to how the question, and answer, would differ w/python3. — Drew Burnett
– Drew Burnett, Commented Apr 14, 2015 at 2:22
python3 uses unicode for all string representations, while python2 doesn't. That causes problems for python2 programs that convert between byte strings and unicode strings, which Python3 programs can usually dodge. The python docs have a section that talks about this. This is also a good read on the frustrations of unicode in python2. Despite the annoyance, it's probably best to work with unicode because it seems to be the future-proof direction. — Dan
– Dan, Commented Apr 14, 2015 at 3:04
I think the question is about sqlalchemy.Unicode column type vs sqlalchemy.String column type. Not regarding the standard python unicode/string types, of which a lot has been written already. — Dirk R
– Dirk R, Commented Apr 20, 2019 at 22:06

sorin · Accepted Answer · 2016-02-08 15:17:34Z

4

In 99.99% of the cases go for Unicode and if possible use Python 3 as it would make your life easier.

answered Feb 8, 2016 at 15:17

sorin

173k194 gold badges582 silver badges861 bronze badges

Sign up to request clarification or add additional context in comments.

1 Comment

David Metcalfe Over a year ago

Would it be possible to elaborate on why?

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

'Unicode' vs. 'String' with SQLAlchemy and PostgreSQL

1 Answer 1

1 Comment

Your Answer

Hot Network Questions

Collectives™ on Stack Overflow

1 Answer 1

1 Comment

Your Answer

Sign up or log in

Post as a guest

Related