First, thank you for your help.
I will use nvarchar.
But as far as indexing, if I do not plan to create an index tag for this field, do I understand that the limitation of not being able to index varchar(MAX) is irrelevant?
>SQLServer always stores only what it needs, even if the column is Varchar(400). Note that you cannot index varchar(MAX). One other thing. NVarChar over VarChar is generally a better choice and recommended as it supports Unicode.
>
>>To store the emails in separate rows I would have to create a child table. This will complicate the design where it is not really necessary. These - extra emails - will be used by only a few (or just one or two) customers. So adding a child table to store the emails, IMO, is overkill. But from your words that "SQL Server will only store what it needs to" do I understand that Varchar(max) will not add more load than, say Varchar(400)?
"The creative process is nothing but a series of crises." Isaac Bashevis Singer
"My experience is that as soon as people are old enough to know better, they don't know anything at all." Oscar Wilde
"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that too." W.Somerset Maugham
