Pros of SQLBrite

• Lightweight and flexible, allowing for more customization
• Easier integration with existing SQLite databases
• Supports reactive queries with RxJava

Cons of SQLBrite

• Requires more manual work for query management
• Less type-safe compared to SQLDelight
• Limited code generation capabilities

Code Comparison

SQLBrite:

val query = db.createQuery("users", "SELECT * FROM users WHERE age > ?", "18")
query.mapToList { cursor ->
    User(cursor.getString(cursor.getColumnIndex("name")))
}

SQLDelight:

val users = database.userQueries.selectUsersOlderThan(age = 18)
    .executeAsList()

SQLDelight generates type-safe Kotlin APIs from SQL statements, providing a more robust and less error-prone approach. SQLBrite, on the other hand, requires manual mapping of cursor results to objects, which can be more flexible but also more prone to errors.

SQLDelight offers stronger compile-time guarantees and better IDE integration, while SQLBrite provides a lighter-weight solution that may be easier to adopt in existing projects. SQLDelight's code generation can lead to cleaner and more maintainable code in the long run, but SQLBrite's simplicity and flexibility may be preferred for smaller projects or those with specific requirements.

Pros of requery

• Supports multiple database types (SQLite, MySQL, PostgreSQL, etc.)
• Offers both ORM and SQL query capabilities
• Provides runtime code generation for improved flexibility

Cons of requery

• Less active development and community support
• More complex setup and configuration
• Steeper learning curve for beginners

Code Comparison

SQLDelight:

CREATE TABLE User (
  id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT,
  name TEXT NOT NULL
);

val users = database.userQueries.selectAll().executeAsList()

requery:

@Entity
data class User(
    @get:Key @get:Generated val id: Int = 0,
    val name: String
)

val users = data.select(User::class).get().toList()

Both SQLDelight and requery are SQL libraries for Kotlin, but they have different approaches. SQLDelight focuses on type-safe SQL generation and multiplatform support, while requery offers a more traditional ORM experience with additional SQL capabilities. SQLDelight has gained more popularity and active development recently, making it a preferred choice for many developers. However, requery's support for multiple database types and its combination of ORM and SQL features may be advantageous in certain scenarios.

Pros of greenDAO

• Mature and well-established ORM with a large user base
• Supports database encryption out of the box
• Offers a simple and intuitive API for database operations

Cons of greenDAO

• Requires more boilerplate code compared to SQLDelight
• Limited support for complex queries and custom SQL statements
• Less flexibility in terms of database schema changes

Code Comparison

greenDAO:

@Entity
public class User {
    @Id private Long id;
    private String name;
    private int age;
}

DaoMaster daoMaster = new DaoMaster(db);
DaoSession daoSession = daoMaster.newSession();
UserDao userDao = daoSession.getUserDao();

SQLDelight:

CREATE TABLE User (
  id INTEGER NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT,
  name TEXT NOT NULL,
  age INTEGER NOT NULL
);

data class User(
  val id: Long,
  val name: String,
  val age: Int
)

val database = Database(driver)
val userQueries: UserQueries = database.userQueries

SQLDelight offers a more type-safe approach with generated Kotlin code, while greenDAO relies on annotations and runtime code generation. SQLDelight provides better integration with Kotlin coroutines and multiplatform projects, making it a more modern choice for Android development.

Pros of Realm

• Object-oriented database with real-time synchronization capabilities
• Supports encryption and offline-first architecture
• Faster query performance for complex data structures

Cons of Realm

• Steeper learning curve due to its unique object-oriented approach
• Limited SQL support, which may be challenging for developers familiar with traditional SQL databases
• Larger app size due to the inclusion of the Realm runtime

Code Comparison

SQLDelight:

CREATE TABLE Person (
  id INTEGER NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT,
  name TEXT NOT NULL
);

val person = Person(name = "John Doe")
database.personQueries.insert(person)

Realm:

open class Person : RealmObject() {
    var name: String = ""
}

realm.executeTransaction { realm ->
    realm.createObject(Person::class.java).apply {
        name = "John Doe"
    }
}

SQLDelight generates type-safe Kotlin APIs from SQL statements, while Realm uses an object-oriented approach with its own query language. SQLDelight provides more flexibility for complex SQL queries, whereas Realm offers a more intuitive object-based model for simpler data structures. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project, such as real-time synchronization needs, query complexity, and your team's familiarity with SQL or object-oriented databases.

Pros of ObjectBox

• High performance: ObjectBox is designed for speed and efficiency, often outperforming SQLite-based solutions
• Object-oriented approach: Works directly with objects, eliminating the need for complex ORM mappings
• Multiplatform support: Offers native implementations for various platforms, including Android, iOS, and desktop

Cons of ObjectBox

• Learning curve: Requires understanding a new database paradigm, which may be challenging for developers familiar with SQL
• Limited ecosystem: Fewer third-party tools and integrations compared to SQL-based solutions
• Potential lock-in: Migrating away from ObjectBox can be more complex due to its unique data model

Code Comparison

ObjectBox:

@Entity
public class User {
    @Id long id;
    String name;
    int age;
}

Box<User> userBox = store.boxFor(User.class);
userBox.put(new User(0, "Alice", 25));

SQLDelight:

CREATE TABLE User (
  id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT,
  name TEXT NOT NULL,
  age INTEGER NOT NULL
);

INSERT INTO User (name, age) VALUES (?, ?);

Both ObjectBox and SQLDelight offer efficient database solutions for mobile and desktop applications. ObjectBox focuses on object-oriented persistence with high performance, while SQLDelight provides type-safe SQL queries with code generation. The choice between them depends on project requirements, team expertise, and performance needs.

Pros of Exposed

• Supports multiple database types (MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQLite, etc.)
• Offers both type-safe DSL and raw SQL query support
• Provides advanced features like batch inserts and upserts

Cons of Exposed

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex API
• Requires more boilerplate code for entity definitions
• May have slightly higher runtime overhead

Code Comparison

SQLDelight:

CREATE TABLE Person (
  id INTEGER NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT,
  name TEXT NOT NULL
);

selectAll:
SELECT * FROM Person;

Exposed:

object Persons : Table() {
    val id = integer("id").autoIncrement()
    val name = varchar("name", 50)
    override val primaryKey = PrimaryKey(id)
}

val allPersons = Persons.selectAll()

SQLDelight generates type-safe Kotlin APIs from SQL statements, while Exposed uses a DSL to define tables and queries in Kotlin. SQLDelight is more SQL-centric, whereas Exposed provides a more Kotlin-native approach to database interactions.

SQLDelight excels in multiplatform projects and compile-time SQL validation, while Exposed offers more flexibility with database types and advanced querying features. The choice between them depends on project requirements, team expertise, and whether SQL-first or Kotlin-first approach is preferred.