是一致的!加入一个VARCHAR到NVARCHAR有一个很大的性能打击。

For your application, nvarchar is fine because the database size is small. Saying "always use nvarchar" is a vast oversimplification. If you're not required to store things like Kanji or other crazy characters, use VARCHAR, it'll use a lot less space. My predecessor at my current job designed something using NVARCHAR when it wasn't needed. We recently switched it to VARCHAR and saved 15 GB on just that table (it was highly written to). Furthermore, if you then have an index on that table and you want to include that column or make a composite index, you've just made your index file size larger.

做决定时要考虑周全;在SQL开发和数据定义中，似乎很少有“默认答案”(当然，除了不惜一切代价避免游标)。

我在工作中经常遇到这样的问题:

库存和定价的FTP提要-当varchar工作正常时，项目描述和其他文本是在nvarchar中。将这些文件转换为varchar可以将文件大小减少近一半，并且对上传非常有帮助。 上面的场景工作得很好，直到有人在商品描述中添加了一个特殊字符(可能是商标，不记得了)

我还是不会每次都用varchar。如果有任何疑问或特殊字符的潜力，我使用nvarchar。我发现，当我100%控制填充字段的内容时，我主要使用varchar。

Generally speaking; Start out with the most expensive datatype that has the least constraints. Put it in production. If performance starts to be an issue, find out what's actually being stored in those nvarchar columns. Is there any characters in there that wouldn't fit into varchar? If not, switch to varchar. Don't try to pre-optimize before you know where the pain is. My guess is that the choice between nvarchar/varchar is not what's going to slow down your application in the foreseable future. There will be other parts of the application where performance tuning will give you much more bang for the bucks.

Nvarchar将在内存、存储、工作集和索引方面有很大的开销，所以如果规格规定它真的永远都不需要，那就别费心了。

我不会有一个硬性的“总是nvarchar”规则，因为它在许多情况下完全是浪费——特别是来自ASCII/EBCDIC的ETL或标识符和代码列，它们通常是键和外键。

另一方面，有很多列的情况，在这些情况下，我肯定会在早期提出这个问题，如果我没有立即得到一个明确而快速的答案，我将使列为nvarchar。

在某些特殊情况下，您会有意限制数据类型，以确保它不包含某个特定集合中的字符。例如，我有一个场景，我需要在数据库中存储域名。域名的国际化在当时是不可靠的，所以最好限制在基础水平上的输入，并有助于避免任何潜在的问题。