But it is hard for me to understand what I got by use
async for
here instead of simplefor
.
The underlying misunderstanding is expecting async for
to automatically parallelize the iteration. It doesn’t do that, it simply allows sequential iteration over an async source. For example, you can use async for
to iterate over lines coming from a TCP stream, messages from a websocket, or database records from an async DB driver.
None of the above would work with an ordinary for
, at least not without blocking the event loop. This is because for
calls __next__
as a blocking function and doesn’t await its result. You cannot manually await
elements obtained by for
because for
expects __next__
to signal the end of iteration by raising StopIteration
. If __next__
is a coroutine, the StopIteration
exception won’t be visible before awaiting it. This is why async for
was introduced, not just in Python, but also in other languages with async/await and generalized for
.
If you want to run the loop iterations in parallel, you need to start them as parallel coroutines and use asyncio.as_completed
or equivalent to retrieve their results as they come:
async def x(i):
print(f"start {i}")
await asyncio.sleep(1)
print(f"end {i}")
return i
# run x(0)..x(10) concurrently and process results as they arrive
for f in asyncio.as_completed([x(i) for i in range(10)]):
result = await f
# ... do something with the result ...
If you don’t care about reacting to results immediately as they arrive, but you need them all, you can make it even simpler by using asyncio.gather
:
# run x(0)..x(10) concurrently and process results when all are done
results = await asyncio.gather(*[x(i) for i in range(10)])