Pros of efcore.pg

• Specialized PostgreSQL support with advanced features
• Better performance for PostgreSQL-specific operations
• Tighter integration with PostgreSQL-exclusive functionalities

Cons of efcore.pg

• Limited to PostgreSQL, lacks cross-database compatibility
• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to EF Core
• May lag behind EF Core in terms of general feature updates

Code Comparison

EF Core (general approach):

using (var context = new MyDbContext())
{
    var users = context.Users.Where(u => u.Age > 18).ToList();
}

efcore.pg (PostgreSQL-specific approach):

using (var context = new MyPostgresDbContext())
{
    var users = context.Users
        .Where(u => u.Age > 18)
        .UseNpgsqlThenOrderBy(u => u.LastName)
        .ToList();
}

The efcore.pg example showcases the use of PostgreSQL-specific extensions like UseNpgsqlThenOrderBy, which can provide performance benefits for certain operations in PostgreSQL.

EF Core is a more general-purpose ORM that supports multiple database providers, while efcore.pg is specifically tailored for PostgreSQL. The choice between them depends on your project requirements, database preferences, and the need for cross-database compatibility versus PostgreSQL-specific optimizations.

Pros of Pomelo.EntityFrameworkCore.MySql

• Specialized MySQL support with optimized performance
• Active community-driven development and frequent updates
• Supports MySQL-specific features and data types

Cons of Pomelo.EntityFrameworkCore.MySql

• Limited to MySQL databases, less versatile than EF Core
• May have a smaller ecosystem and fewer resources compared to EF Core
• Potential for version compatibility issues with EF Core updates

Code Comparison

EF Core (generic approach):

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

Pomelo.EntityFrameworkCore.MySql:

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

The main difference is in the database provider method (UseSqlServer vs. UseMySql) and the additional ServerVersion parameter for Pomelo, which allows automatic detection of the MySQL server version.

Pomelo.EntityFrameworkCore.MySql is an excellent choice for projects specifically targeting MySQL databases, offering optimized performance and MySQL-specific features. However, EF Core provides broader database support and a larger ecosystem, making it more suitable for projects that may need to switch between different database providers or require extensive third-party integrations.

Pros of efcore

• More active development and frequent updates
• Larger community and contributor base
• Better documentation and learning resources

Cons of efcore

• Potentially more complex due to additional features
• May have more breaking changes between versions
• Larger codebase, which could lead to longer build times

Code Comparison

efcore:

using var context = new BloggingContext();
var blog = new Blog { Url = "http://example.com" };
context.Blogs.Add(blog);
await context.SaveChangesAsync();

efcore:

using var context = new BloggingContext();
var blog = new Blog { Url = "http://example.com" };
context.Blogs.Add(blog);
await context.SaveChangesAsync();

Summary

Both efcore and efcore are the same repository, as there is no separate repository called "efcore>". The comparison provided above is based on the assumption that you intended to compare two different versions or branches of the efcore repository. In reality, there are no significant differences to highlight between them, as they are the same project.

Entity Framework Core (EF Core) is a lightweight, extensible, open-source, and cross-platform version of the popular Entity Framework data access technology. It serves as an object-relational mapper (O/RM) for .NET, enabling developers to work with databases using .NET objects and eliminating the need for most of the data-access code typically required.

Pros of Marten

• Native support for document storage and querying in PostgreSQL
• Built-in event sourcing capabilities
• Simpler setup and configuration for document-based scenarios

Cons of Marten

• Limited to PostgreSQL as the backend database
• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to EF Core
• Less comprehensive ORM features for relational data

Code Comparison

Marten:

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

var user = await session.Query<User>()
    .FirstOrDefaultAsync(x => x.Name == "John");

EF Core:

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

var foundUser = await context.Users
    .FirstOrDefaultAsync(x => x.Name == "John");

Marten excels in document-based scenarios with PostgreSQL, offering built-in event sourcing. However, it's limited to PostgreSQL and has a smaller ecosystem. EF Core provides a more comprehensive ORM experience with support for multiple databases but may require more setup for document-based use cases. The code comparison shows similar syntax for basic operations, with Marten using a session and EF Core using a context for data access.

Pros of linq2db

• Faster performance, especially for complex queries and bulk operations
• More flexible database support, including legacy and non-relational databases
• Lighter weight with fewer dependencies

Cons of linq2db

• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to EF Core
• Less extensive documentation and learning resources
• Fewer high-level abstractions for complex scenarios

Code Comparison

EF Core:

using (var context = new MyDbContext())
{
    var customers = context.Customers
        .Where(c => c.City == "London")
        .ToList();
}

linq2db:

using (var db = new DataConnection())
{
    var customers = db.GetTable<Customer>()
        .Where(c => c.City == "London")
        .ToList();
}

Both libraries provide LINQ-based querying, but linq2db offers more direct access to the underlying database, potentially resulting in better performance for complex queries. EF Core, on the other hand, provides a higher level of abstraction and more features out of the box, such as change tracking and lazy loading.

While EF Core is more widely adopted and has extensive Microsoft support, linq2db offers advantages in terms of performance and flexibility, especially for projects with specific database requirements or performance-critical applications.