🚥 👆 👟 ⚪️➡️ ➕1️⃣ 🔁 🛠️ 👈 🔨 🚫 👷 🌌 🔬 🔛 &amp; 👆 ⚙️ ⚖ 🙃 📊-🕴 *➡ 🛠️ 🔢* ⏮️ ✅ `def` 🤪 🎭 📈 (🔃 1️⃣0️⃣0️⃣ 💓), 🙏 🗒 👈 **FastAPI** ⭐ 🔜 🔄. 👫 💼, ⚫️ 👻 ⚙️ `async def` 🚥 👆 *➡ 🛠️ 🔢* ⚙️ 📟 👈 🎭 🚧 <abbr title="Input/Output: disk reading or writing, network communications.">👤/🅾</abbr>.

, 👯‍♂️ ⚠, 🤞 👈 **FastAPI** 🔜 [⏩](index.md#_15){.internal-link target=_blank} 🌘 (⚖️ 🌘 ⭐) 👆 ⏮️ 🛠️.

### 🔗

gain (about 100 nanoseconds), please note that in **FastAPI** the effect would be quite opposite. In these cases, it's better to use `async def` unless your *path operation functions* use code that performs blocking <abbr title="Input/Output: disk reading or writing, network communications.">I/O</abbr>.

Still, in both situations, chances are that **FastAPI** will [still be faster](index.md#performance){.internal-link target=_blank} than (or at least comparable to) your previous framework....

Aún así, en ambas situaciones, es probable que **FastAPI** sea [aún más rápido](index.md#rendimiento){.Internal-link target=_blank} que (o al menos comparable) a tu framework anterior.