scany VS bqb

When I don't use one, I'm typically using SQLx or (if using Postgres) pgx with scany https://github.com/georgysavva/scany (slightly better API than SQLx and great performance since you can use the native interface from pgx if desired whereas many database drivers only offer the text-based interface).

If you want something like sqlx and you already know you're using pgx, a better choice is probably https://github.com/georgysavva/scany since you can use the native interface and get the same key features.

github.com/georgysavva/scany (v1.1.0)

I like to use pgxscan from https://github.com/georgysavva/scany

There's also bqb. We use it in production at our company -- much better than raw SQL. If you couple it with something like scany then you get more of the ORM benefits without the complexity.

But using a query builder, something like squirrel or (plug) bqb, allows you to actually write SQL (or something close to it) when you need it but also handles the nasty string building bits. Though I agree that ORMs are not always bad, especially for small projects with well-defined scope.

Plug for bqb as a query builder, but there's also squirrel which works pretty well too.

(plug) bqb for very simple query building.

Squirrel is great! Let me also plug bqb.

Plug: BQB (basic query builder) is small, 100% test coverage, and in AwesomeGo. A great starter project.

I totally understand this. If you do go with a query builder, may I recommend bqb (shameless plug) as it allows you to remain closer to the SQL than some alternatives and doesn't do anything fancy. We stripped out 50% of our query logic with it in our org, which has enabled us to more readily tweak the SQL for performance.

There's also bqb. We use it in production at our company -- much better than raw SQL. If you couple it with something like scany then you get more of the ORM benefits without the complexity.

Another shameless plug: https://github.com/nullism/bqb pretty tiny query builder with 100% test coverage