Is VARCHAR like totally 1990s?

sql-server nvarchar
Edward Tanguay picture Edward Tanguay · Nov 23, 2008 · Viewed 10.7k times · Source
  1. VARCHAR does not store Unicode characters.
  2. NVARCHAR does store Unicode characters.
  3. Today's applications should always be Unicode compatible.
  4. NVARCHAR takes twice the amount of space to store it.
  5. Point 4 doesn't matter because storage space is extremely inexpensive.

Ergo: When designing SQL Server databases today, one should always use NVARCHAR.

Is this sound reasoning? Does anyone disagree with any of the premises? Are there any reasons to choose VARCHAR over NVARCHAR today?

Answer

dkretz picture dkretz · Nov 23, 2008

You match the datatype with the data that will be stored in the column. By a similar argument you could say why not store all data in NVARCHAR columns, because numbers and dates can be represented as strings of digits.

If the best match for the data that will be stored in the column is VARCHAR, then use it.

Related questions

What is the difference between varchar and nvarchar?

Is it just that nvarchar supports multibyte characters? If that is the case, is there really any point, other than storage concerns, to using varchars?

Read More
What are the main performance differences between varchar and nvarchar SQL Server data types?

I'm working on a database for a small web app at my school using SQL Server 2005. I see a couple of schools of thought on the issue of varchar vs nvarchar: Use varchar unless you deal with a lot of …

Read More
nvarchar(max) vs NText

What are the advantages and disadvantages of using the nvarchar(max) vs. NText data types in SQL Server? I don't need backward compatibility, so it is fine that nvarchar(max) isn't supported in older SQL Server releases. Edit: Apparently the …

Read More