Re: Replacement of US7ASCII character set in 11g?

From: Yechiel Adar <>
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:40:54 +0200
Message-id: <>

As long as the database charset and the client charset are the same no conversion is done.
So, if you have us7ascii charset and you put in chr(240) it will go as 240 to the database and will come back as 240. If you use WE8MSWIN1252 charset on the database and us7ascii on the client, the sql client on the client machine will try conversion and will return ? (chr(191) or chr(96) if I remember correctly) that say unknown char.

Try changing the database charset to WE8MSWIN1252 and use the same charset on the client, you will probably have no problems.

Adar Yechiel
Rechovot, Israel

Janine Sisk wrote:
> I am migrating a website from Oracle 8i to 11g, and one of the snags
> I've run into is the character set.
> set to US7ASCII. This character set seems to have disappeared in
> 11g. I tried making a database using Oracle's defaults, which are
> WE8MSWIN1252 and AL16UTF16 respectively. The data looks ok so far,
> but my client is worried about problems we just haven't seen yet.
> My question: are there other choices for the two settings which would
> give us a better chance of having unmangled data than the ones Oracle
> chose? If it matters, he's worried about the diacritics specifically,
> though I don't think he has actually found any yet that look wrong.
> Also, a couple of related questions:
> In 8i, I set the NLS_DATE_FORMAT by adding a line to the init.ora
> file. In my Googling I have seen suggestions to set this by writing
> out a pfile, editing that, then converting it back to an spfile,
> basically doing the same thing I used to do but with the added steps
> of translating from and to the binary format. This seems clunky;
> isn't there a better way?
> Lastly, the client noticed that NLS_TIME_TZ_FORMAT has changed, not to
> his liking. Would I set this in the same way as NLS_DATE_FORMAT,
> whatever that turns out to be?
> Thanks for being patient with some very newbie questions!
> janine
> --

Received on Thu Jan 14 2010 - 07:40:54 CST

Original text of this message