Pros of EF Core

• Broader database support, including SQL Server, SQLite, and more
• More extensive documentation and community resources
• Tighter integration with other .NET technologies

Cons of EF Core

• Less specialized PostgreSQL support
• May lack some PostgreSQL-specific features and optimizations
• Potentially slower performance for PostgreSQL-specific operations

Code Comparison

EF Core (generic approach):

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

Efcore.PG (PostgreSQL-specific):

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

The Efcore.PG example showcases a PostgreSQL-specific extension method (UseNpgsqlThenOrderBy) that optimizes the query for PostgreSQL databases. This demonstrates how Efcore.PG provides more tailored functionality for PostgreSQL, while EF Core offers a more generic approach suitable for multiple database systems.

Pros of Pomelo.EntityFrameworkCore.MySql

• Better support for MySQL-specific features and data types
• More active community and frequent updates
• Extensive documentation and examples for MySQL integration

Cons of Pomelo.EntityFrameworkCore.MySql

• Limited cross-database compatibility compared to efcore.pg
• Potentially slower performance for complex queries
• Less mature codebase with potential for more bugs

Code Comparison

Pomelo.EntityFrameworkCore.MySql:

services.AddDbContext<MyContext>(options =>
    options.UseMySql(Configuration.GetConnectionString("Default"),
        new MySqlServerVersion(new Version(8, 0, 21))));

efcore.pg:

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

The main difference in usage is the specification of the MySQL server version in Pomelo.EntityFrameworkCore.MySql, which is not required for efcore.pg. This allows Pomelo to optimize for specific MySQL versions but adds an extra configuration step.

Both libraries provide similar functionality for their respective databases, with efcore.pg offering more advanced PostgreSQL-specific features and Pomelo.EntityFrameworkCore.MySql focusing on MySQL optimization. The choice between them largely depends on the target database and specific project requirements.

Pros of MySqlConnector

• Supports asynchronous I/O operations, potentially offering better performance for high-concurrency scenarios
• Provides a pure C# implementation, eliminating the need for native dependencies
• Offers compatibility with .NET Framework, .NET Core, and .NET Standard

Cons of MySqlConnector

• Limited to MySQL databases, while efcore.pg supports PostgreSQL-specific features
• May lack some advanced PostgreSQL-specific functionalities available in efcore.pg
• Potentially less integrated with Entity Framework Core compared to efcore.pg

Code Comparison

MySqlConnector:

using MySqlConnector;

var connectionString = "Server=localhost;Database=mydb;Uid=myuser;Pwd=mypassword;";
using var connection = new MySqlConnection(connectionString);
await connection.OpenAsync();

efcore.pg:

using Npgsql;

var connectionString = "Host=localhost;Database=mydb;Username=myuser;Password=mypassword;";
using var connection = new NpgsqlConnection(connectionString);
await connection.OpenAsync();

Both libraries provide similar connection setup and usage patterns, with minor differences in connection string syntax and class names. The main distinctions lie in the underlying database support and specific features tailored to MySQL or PostgreSQL, respectively.

Pros of Marten

• Native support for document storage and event sourcing
• Simpler API for complex querying and data manipulation
• Better performance for document-based operations

Cons of Marten

• Less mature and smaller community compared to EF Core
• Limited support for traditional relational database operations
• Steeper learning curve for developers familiar with ORM patterns

Code Comparison

Marten (Document storage):

var user = new User { Name = "John Doe", Email = "john@example.com" };
session.Store(user);
await session.SaveChangesAsync();

EF Core.PG (Relational):

var user = new User { Name = "John Doe", Email = "john@example.com" };
context.Users.Add(user);
await context.SaveChangesAsync();

Marten (Complex querying):

var users = await session.Query<User>()
    .Where(u => u.Age > 18 && u.IsActive)
    .OrderBy(u => u.Name)
    .ToListAsync();

EF Core.PG (Complex querying):

var users = await context.Users
    .Where(u => u.Age > 18 && u.IsActive)
    .OrderBy(u => u.Name)
    .ToListAsync();

Both libraries provide powerful data access capabilities for PostgreSQL, but Marten excels in document storage and event sourcing scenarios, while EF Core.PG offers a more traditional ORM approach with broader relational database support.