> Change your app to make 3 parallel requests to httpbin, collect the responses and insert them into the database. That's an actually realistic asyncio workload

> Change your app to make 3 parallel requests to httpbin, collect the responses and insert them into the database. That's an actually realistic asyncio workload I don't see how that is a more "realistic" asyncio workload. It might be a workload that async is better suited for, but the point of the article is to compare async web frameworks, which will often be used just to fetch and return some data from the db. If you had an endpoint which needed to fetch 3 items from httpbin and insert them in the db it may make sense to use asyncio tools for that, even within the context of a web app running under a sync framework+server like Falcon+Gunicorn. In my experience Python web apps (Django!) often spend surprisingly little time waiting on the db to return results, and relatively a large amount of time cpu-bound instantiating ORM model instances from the db data, then transforming those instances back into primitive types that can be serialized to JSON in an HTTP response. In that context I am not surprised if sync server with more processes is performing better. In this test it's not even that bad... the 'ORM' seems to be returning just a tuple which is transformed to a dict and then serialized.