← Graph

Measured async performance vs sequential and threads

question 2 connections

Audience question on whether Adam could quantify the gain from using fibers and async over a traditional thread-based or sequential implementation. Adam answered: initial sequential implementation took above 50 seconds for the whole workflow; with async the same workflow dropped to around 15–20 seconds. He added that async's abstraction made it easy to extend complex workflows and that he felt he could load even more concurrent work on top.

answer_summary
Sequential ~50s → async ~15–20s; async's abstraction is easy to extend and scale further.
question Measured async performance vs sequential and threads
about
async tool
Question specifically about async's performance characteristics.
question Measured async performance vs sequential and threads
asked_at
Audience Q&A about measured async/fiber performance gains.

Provenance

Read by
2 extractions