Pros of EF Core

• Broader database support, including SQL Server, PostgreSQL, and more
• More frequent updates and active development from Microsoft
• Extensive documentation and community support

Cons of EF Core

• Lacks specific optimizations for MySQL
• May require additional configuration for optimal MySQL performance
• Larger footprint due to support for multiple databases

Code Comparison

Pomelo.EntityFrameworkCore.MySql:

services.AddDbContext<MyContext>(options =>
    options.UseMySql(connectionString, ServerVersion.AutoDetect(connectionString)));

EF Core:

services.AddDbContext<MyContext>(options =>
    options.UseSqlServer(connectionString));

The main difference is in the database provider method (UseMySql vs. UseSqlServer). Pomelo.EntityFrameworkCore.MySql is specifically tailored for MySQL, while EF Core supports multiple database providers.

Both repositories provide robust ORM solutions for .NET applications. EF Core offers a more versatile approach with support for various databases, while Pomelo.EntityFrameworkCore.MySql focuses on optimizing MySQL performance. The choice between the two depends on specific project requirements, such as database type, performance needs, and desired level of customization.

Pros of efcore.pg

• Better support for PostgreSQL-specific features like arrays, JSON, and full-text search
• More frequent updates and active community involvement
• Extensive documentation and examples for advanced PostgreSQL functionalities

Cons of efcore.pg

• Limited to PostgreSQL, while Pomelo.EntityFrameworkCore.MySql supports both MySQL and MariaDB
• Slightly steeper learning curve for developers not familiar with PostgreSQL-specific features
• May require more configuration for optimal performance in certain scenarios

Code Comparison

efcore.pg:

services.AddDbContext<MyContext>(options =>
    options.UseNpgsql(Configuration.GetConnectionString("DefaultConnection")));

Pomelo.EntityFrameworkCore.MySql:

services.AddDbContext<MyContext>(options =>
    options.UseMySql(Configuration.GetConnectionString("DefaultConnection")));

Both providers offer similar syntax for basic configuration, but efcore.pg provides additional methods for PostgreSQL-specific features:

modelBuilder.Entity<MyEntity>()
    .HasPostgresExtension("uuid-ossp")
    .Property(e => e.Id)
    .HasDefaultValueSql("uuid_generate_v4()");

This code snippet demonstrates how efcore.pg allows easy integration of PostgreSQL extensions and functions, which is not available in Pomelo.EntityFrameworkCore.MySql due to database differences.

Pros of MySqlConnector

• Lightweight and focused on MySQL connectivity
• Supports asynchronous operations natively
• Can be used with various ORMs or directly for database access

Cons of MySqlConnector

• Requires additional setup for use with Entity Framework Core
• May lack some Entity Framework Core-specific optimizations
• Potentially steeper learning curve for developers used to EF Core

Code Comparison

MySqlConnector:

using MySqlConnector;

using var connection = new MySqlConnection(connectionString);
await connection.OpenAsync();
using var command = new MySqlCommand("SELECT * FROM Users", connection);
using var reader = await command.ExecuteReaderAsync();

Pomelo.EntityFrameworkCore.MySql:

using Microsoft.EntityFrameworkCore;

public class MyDbContext : DbContext
{
    protected override void OnConfiguring(DbContextOptionsBuilder optionsBuilder)
    {
        optionsBuilder.UseMySql(connectionString, ServerVersion.AutoDetect(connectionString));
    }
}

MySqlConnector provides a more direct approach to database access, while Pomelo.EntityFrameworkCore.MySql integrates seamlessly with Entity Framework Core, offering a higher level of abstraction. The choice between the two depends on project requirements, existing infrastructure, and developer preferences.

Pros of Marten

• Designed specifically for document databases (PostgreSQL), offering better support for document-oriented scenarios
• Provides event sourcing capabilities out of the box
• Offers a more flexible querying approach with LINQ and native PostgreSQL support

Cons of Marten

• Limited to PostgreSQL, while Pomelo.EntityFrameworkCore.MySql supports MySQL and MariaDB
• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to Entity Framework Core
• Steeper learning curve for developers familiar with traditional ORM patterns

Code Comparison

Marten:

using (var session = store.LightweightSession())
{
    session.Store(new User { Name = "John" });
    await session.SaveChangesAsync();
}

Pomelo.EntityFrameworkCore.MySql:

using (var context = new MyDbContext())
{
    context.Users.Add(new User { Name = "John" });
    await context.SaveChangesAsync();
}

Both libraries provide similar functionality for basic CRUD operations, but Marten's API is more focused on document-oriented operations, while Pomelo.EntityFrameworkCore.MySql follows the traditional Entity Framework Core patterns.

Pros of linq2db

• Supports multiple database providers, not limited to MySQL
• Offers better performance due to its lightweight nature and direct SQL generation
• Provides more control over SQL queries and database-specific features

Cons of linq2db

• Steeper learning curve compared to Entity Framework Core
• Less extensive documentation and community support
• Lacks some of the high-level abstractions and conveniences provided by EF Core

Code Comparison

Linq2db:

var query = from p in db.Products
            where p.CategoryId == 1
            select p;
var products = query.ToList();

Pomelo.EntityFrameworkCore.MySql:

var products = context.Products
    .Where(p => p.CategoryId == 1)
    .ToList();

Both examples achieve similar results, but linq2db offers more flexibility in query construction and optimization. Pomelo.EntityFrameworkCore.MySql, being built on Entity Framework Core, provides a more familiar and abstracted approach for developers accustomed to EF Core.

Pros of ServiceStack.OrmLite

• Lightweight and fast, with minimal overhead
• Supports multiple database providers (MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQLite, etc.)
• Offers a simple API for database operations

Cons of ServiceStack.OrmLite

• Less integrated with Entity Framework Core ecosystem
• May require more manual configuration for complex scenarios
• Smaller community and fewer resources compared to EF Core

Code Comparison

Pomelo.EntityFrameworkCore.MySql:

public class MyDbContext : DbContext
{
    public DbSet<User> Users { get; set; }
    
    protected override void OnConfiguring(DbContextOptionsBuilder optionsBuilder)
    {
        optionsBuilder.UseMySql("connection_string");
    }
}

ServiceStack.OrmLite:

var dbFactory = new OrmLiteConnectionFactory("connection_string", MySqlDialect.Provider);
using (var db = dbFactory.Open())
{
    var users = db.Select<User>();
}

Both libraries provide ways to interact with MySQL databases, but they differ in their approach. Pomelo.EntityFrameworkCore.MySql integrates with Entity Framework Core, offering a more robust ORM experience with features like change tracking and lazy loading. ServiceStack.OrmLite, on the other hand, provides a simpler, more lightweight approach that may be easier to set up and use for basic database operations.