[zedpm]

That's an odd assertion. What kind of things do you think most projects do? I'd say most projects have network IO happening (querying databases, storing data to e.g. S3, communicating with other web services), in which case async absolutely is helpful and far more performant.

[mixmastamyk]

https://techspot.zzzeek.org/2015/02/15/asynchronous-python-a...

[zedpm]

That's nearly 5 years old now, so even the bits of that which are backed up with actual data aren't of much use. Benchmarks of asyncio in python 3.4.1 are going to be wildly different than in later versions. I understand the argument he's trying to make about db access and performance, but modern benchmarks seem to disprove his argument, e.g. https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r18&hw=... and https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r18&hw=... .

[mixmastamyk]

Not sure what I’m looking for.

[necovek]

In the second URL, most async frameworks can deliver around 10x the number of http request for endpoints doing 20 sql queries to pg (15000 vs 1500 for flask/django...).

Note that this thread is a discussion of a new web framework — one that will definitely do network requests, and likely to do db requests (over a network or a local socket, but I/O bound regardless).

[zedpm]

Yes, sorry, those are benchmarks for python web frameworks making db queries. All the top performers are async frameworks.

[mixmastamyk]

Yes I’ve seen this site before and knew that the top performers are async. However thought there was a particular application where it helped most, eg websockets rather than simple crud. Most apps aren’t making super simple queries like this either. Whether any of it matters much I’m not sure.