Python Concurrency: asyncio, threading, multiprocessing

tags: python, async, tutorial, advanced

tags: python, async, tutorial, advanced

tags: python, async, tutorial, advanced

tags: python, async, tutorial, advanced

You’re staring at a script that takes 30 seconds to fetch data from ten APIs. Your CPU is idle, your users are frustrated, and you know Python can do better. The secret isn’t a faster machine—it’s choosing the right concurrency model. Python offers three distinct tools: asyncio, threading, and multiprocessing. Each solves a different problem, and using the wrong one won’t just fail to help; it might make your app slower.

The key to mastering Python concurrency isn’t memorizing syntax—it’s understanding your bottleneck. Is your code waiting on the network (I/O-bound)? Or is it crunching numbers (CPU-bound)? The answer dictates your tool.

The Golden Rule: Match the Tool to the Bottleneck

Python’s concurrency landscape boils down to a simple decision tree. If you’re doing heavy calculations, you need true parallelism, which only multiprocessing provides. If you’re waiting on databases, APIs, or files, you need concurrency, which asyncio and threading deliver [2][3].

Don’t guess where your slowness lies. Profile first. Use tools like cProfile to see if you’re waiting on the CPU or the network before picking a model [3].

Deep Dive: When to Use Each

multiprocessing: The CPU Crusher

Python has a Global Interpreter Lock (GIL) that prevents multiple threads from executing Python bytecodes simultaneously. This makes standard threading useless for CPU-heavy tasks [2][6].

multiprocessing sidesteps the GIL by spawning separate processes. Each process has its own Python interpreter and memory space, allowing true parallelism across CPU cores [6].

• Use it for: Image processing, matrix calculations, data encryption.
• Avoid it for: Simple I/O tasks, as the overhead of creating processes is high [3].

threading: The Legacy I/O Worker

Threads are great for I/O-bound tasks because they can wait for IO simultaneously. While the GIL prevents parallel bytecode execution, it releases the lock when a thread hits an I/O operation (like a network request), allowing other threads to run [2][4].

• Use it for: Making multiple API calls, downloading files from multiple URLs when libraries are blocking [3].
• The Catch: It’s subject to the GIL and has overhead from creating and managing threads [2][6].

asyncio: The Modern I/O King

asyncio runs in a single thread using an event loop and cooperative scheduling. Instead of fighting the GIL, it never has to: only one coroutine runs at a time, but it voluntarily "pauses" when waiting for I/O, letting the loop switch to another task [6][9].

• Use it for: High-concurrency servers, chat apps, network-heavy applications needing thousands of simultaneous connections [4][8].
• The Catch: You must use async/await syntax and async-compatible libraries. If your library is blocking, asyncio can’t help directly [5][11].

Actionable Code: A Real-World Comparison

Let’s see the difference in action. Imagine we need to fetch data from 5 slow APIs. We’ll compare sequential execution, threading, and asyncio.

import asyncio
import time
import threading
import requests

# Simulate a slow API call (2 seconds)
def fetch_data(url):
    time.sleep(2)
    return f"Data from {url}"

# 1. Sequential (The Slow Way)
def run_sequential():
    start = time.time()
    results = [fetch_data(f"api-{i}") for i in range(5)]
    print(f"Sequential: {time.time() - start:.2f}s")
    return results

# 2. Threading (The I/O Way)
def run_threading():
    start = time.time()
    threads = []
    results = []

    def worker(url):
        results.append(fetch_data(url))

    for i in range(5):
        t = threading.Thread(target=worker, args=(f"api-{i}",))
        threads.append(t)
        t.start()

    for t in threads:
        t.join()

    print(f"Threading: {time.time() - start:.2f}s")
    return results

# 3. Asyncio (The Modern Way)
async def async_fetch(url):
    await asyncio.sleep(2)  # Non-blocking wait
    return f"Data from {url}"

async def run_asyncio():
    start = time.time()
    tasks = [async_fetch(f"api-{i}") for i in range(5)]
    results = await asyncio.gather(*tasks)
    print(f"Asyncio: {time.time() - start:.2f}s")
    return results

if __name__ == "__main__":
    run_sequential()
    run_threading()
    asyncio.run(run_asyncio())

What you’ll see:

• Sequential: ~10 seconds (5 calls × 2s).
• Threading: ~2 seconds (all run concurrently).
• Asyncio: ~2 seconds (all run concurrently, but with less overhead than threads).

In this I/O-bound scenario, both threading and asyncio crush sequential code. However, asyncio is more efficient because it avoids the overhead of creating and managing multiple threads [4]. If you were doing 10,000 requests, asyncio would likely win due to lower memory usage [3][4].

Practical Tips for Today

You don’t need to rewrite your entire app to see gains. Start with these actionable steps:

1. Pick the right executor: Use ThreadPoolExecutor for I/O, ProcessPoolExecutor for CPU, and async for network-heavy apps [1][5].
2. Don’t mix blocking and async: If you have blocking I/O code in an asyncio app, wrap it in asyncio.to_thread() or use a ThreadPoolExecutor [5].
3. Match worker counts: For CPU-bound tasks, set workers to the number of CPU cores. For I/O, you can often use more [3].
4. Use context managers: Always use with statements to prevent resource leaks when managing threads or processes [3].
5. Start simple: If you’re stuck with blocking libraries, threading is your candidate. If you can use async libraries, asyncio is the first choice [2].

Stop Guessing, Start Profiling

The biggest mistake developers make is assuming their code is CPU-bound when it’s actually waiting on the network. Profile first. If your CPU is idle while waiting, you need concurrency. If your CPU is maxed out, you need parallelism.

• CPU-bound? → multiprocessing [2][6]
• I/O-bound + async libs? → asyncio [2][4]
• I/O-bound + blocking libs? → threading [3][6]

Concurrency isn’t about making everything faster; it’s about eliminating wasted time. Whether you’re scraping data, training models, or building a chat server, the right tool turns 30-second waits into 2-second responses.

What’s your bottleneck? Drop a comment with your most frustrating slow script, and let’s figure out which concurrency model will save you time. If you found this guide useful, hit the like button and share it with a teammate who’s still running sequential API calls!

If you found this helpful, consider buying me a coffee ☕ — it keeps these articles coming!

Also check out my AI tools collection: AI 次元世界 — free AI tools for developers.