• @hark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    416 days ago

    Usually, but when it isn’t then you’ve got a bottleneck. Multithreaded performance is a major weak point if you need to do any processing that isn’t handled by one of the libraries.

    • @sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      2
      edit-2
      16 days ago

      Then you need to break up your problem into processes. Python doesn’t really do multi-threading (hopefully that changes with the GIL going away), but most things can scale reasonably well in a process pool if you manage the worker queue properly (e.g. RabbitMQ works well).

      It’s not as good as proper threadimg, but it’s a lot simpler and easier to scale horizontally. You can later rewrite certain parts if hosting costs become a larger issue than dev costs.

      • @hark@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        316 days ago

        A process pool means extra copying of data around which incurs a huge cost and this is made worse by the tendency for parallel-processing-friendly workloads often consisting of large amounts of data.

        • Yup, which is why you should try to limit the copying by designing your parallel processing algorithm around it. If you can’t, you would handle threading with a native library or something and scale vertical instead of horizontal. Or pick a different language if it’s a huge part of your app.

          But in a lot of cases, it’s reasonable to stick with Python and scale horizontally. That has value if you’re otherwise a Python shop.