News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Async Python is not faster. Parent comment

Re:Async Python is not faster by bildung on Friday June 12, 2020 @07:38AM (#23498224)
> His async code creates a pool with only 10 max connections[1] (the default). Whereas his sync pool[2], with a flask app that has 16 workers, has significantly more database connections.

And the reasoning is explained in the article:

"The rule I used for deciding on what the optimal number of worker processes was is simple: for each framework I started at a single worker and increased the worker count successively until performance got worse."

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Async Python is not faster by thefreeman on Friday June 12, 2020 @09:17AM (#23498901)
That is talking about WSGI worker processes. OP is talking about database pool connections. They are not the same thing.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Async Python is not faster by tmstieff on Friday June 12, 2020 @08:42AM (#23498626)
Seems many commenters missed this statement. It's also troubling how common it is to hear assertions that async is king especially on projects where your future scale is unknown. Based on https://web.archive.org/web/20160203172420/https://www.maili... presentation, it looks like there is a stronger case for a sync model as the default.
[ Parent | on HN ]