I support LINQ to SQL

I have many questions after reading the comparison between the performance of the LINQ to SQL and the nhib.pdf database, such as whether the test can be reproduced, whether the optimization method is the same, and whether the test source code is available for verification.

Unfortunately, I did not. The author only gave a matrix table. The conclusion is that there is no disparity in the performance between the two tables.

But since performance has not become a decisive condition, why does Nhibernate have better expectations?

Nhibernate originated from hibernate, a Java-type source. If hibernate involves complex object operations in Java-type projects and does not interfere by default, the hsql output is really bad. I think it is similar to writing a SQL statement that cannot replace all database operations perfectly.

In essence, the complexity of objects and the schema heterogeneity of tables determine that the intermediate transformation requires a lot of State processing. The processing of such State insertion with a small amount of data is also at a consumption performance.

Next, I expected the comparison of nhib.pdf and LINQ to SQL to compare the scalability of large and small projects and the difficulty of the learning curves of the two data object frameworks,CodeComparison of data volume, readability, IDE designer support, project configuration complexity, and later maintenance overhead.

None of them are disappointed. LINQ is a set of object operations abstracted from the. NET syntax itself. Hibernate is a set of custom object methods based on object extension and reflection. Pair. net experience can be fully used in LINQ to SQL, while Nhibernate requires the background of the Java version of hibernate or to read the one written by the hibernate author. net essence is comparable to the thickness of the book.

Finally, we can mention that nhib.pdf is fully open-source, and that LINQ can also read its code. In the end, let's look at the summary of large projects.