I understand that an 254 character email address is valid, but implementations I have researched tend to use a varchar(60) to varchar(80) or equivalent. For example: this SQL Server recommendation uses varchar(80)

Is there a reason to not use the full 254 character maximum? Doesn't a varchar by definition use only as much storage as needed to hold the data?

Are there significant performance implications/trade-offs which cause so many implementations to use less than the full 254 possible characters?

I understand that an 254 character email address is valid, but implementations I have researched tend to use a varchar(60) to varchar(80) or equivalent. For example: this SQL Server recommendation uses varchar(80) or this Oracle example

Is there a reason to not use the full 254 character maximum? Doesn't a varchar by definition use only as much storage as needed to hold the data?

Are there significant performance implications/trade-offs which cause so many implementations to use less than the full 254 possible characters?

I understand that an 255 character email address is valid, but implementations I have researched tend to use a varchar(60) to varchar(80) or equivalent. For example: this SQL Server recommendation uses varchar(80)

Is there a reason to not use the full 255 character maximum? Doesn't a varchar by definition use only as much storage as needed to hold the data?

I understand that an 254 character email address is valid, but implementations I have researched tend to use a varchar(60) to varchar(80) or equivalent. For example: this SQL Server recommendation uses varchar(80)

Is there a reason to not use the full 254 character maximum? Doesn't a varchar by definition use only as much storage as needed to hold the data?

Are there significant performance implications/trade-offs which cause so many implementations to use less than the full 254 possible characters?