5 ms·
The gohttp library seems to do a lot less than what gunicorn/werkzeug/flask does. I would guess this is what makes the drastic performance difference, not the f
by raziel2p 7y ago
The gohttp library seems to do a lot less than what gunicorn/werkzeug/flask does. I would guess this is what makes the drastic performance difference, not the fact that the HTTP handler is written in go. I'm surprised that it was so close to go-net/http performance, though.
- jchw 7y agoActually it’s probably concurrency: > Keep in mind that this is with 10 concurrent requests, so werkzeug-flask probably chokes more on the concurrency than the response time being slow. I am not sure though. I’d imagine Go can beat Python performance enough to make up for the (clearly not very egregious) CGo penalties.
- hermitdev 7y agoI haven't dealt with Go at all, but if you can use aiohttp on Python 3 (3.5+ IIRC), it is remarkably fast for handling asynchronous requests. In my testing, saw something like a 66% wall clock reduction over using multiprocessing to achieve parallelism. Sadly, cant use it in production, because aiohttp doesnt currently support Negotiate/SSPI auth.