>=v0.2.4 introduced breaking change (and omit one of still valid use cases) by removing async_req #15

Closed
opened 2026-02-16 07:15:58 -05:00 by yindo · 3 comments
Owner

Originally created by @asvishnyakov on GitHub (May 12, 2025).

Originally assigned to: @bruvduroiu on GitHub.

The naming might be confusing, but each of the following cases is still valid and not deprecated by Pinecone:

  • synchronous execution
  • synchronous execution of parallel requests (via async_req)
  • asynchronous execution (using an event loop)

By removing async_req, you introduced a breaking change and reduced performance — now, code that was simply upgraded to the new version without changes runs synchronously in sequence, rather than in parallel. Additionally, you’ve eliminated support for one of the valid use cases.

Originally created by @asvishnyakov on GitHub (May 12, 2025). Originally assigned to: @bruvduroiu on GitHub. The naming might be confusing, but each of the following cases is still valid and not deprecated by Pinecone: * synchronous execution * synchronous execution of parallel requests (via `async_req`) * asynchronous execution (using an event loop) By removing `async_req`, you introduced a breaking change and reduced performance — now, code that was simply upgraded to the new version without changes runs synchronously in sequence, rather than in parallel. Additionally, you’ve eliminated support for one of the valid use cases.
yindo closed this issue 2026-02-16 07:15:58 -05:00
Author
Owner

@bruvduroiu commented on GitHub (Jul 9, 2025):

Hey @asvishnyakov , I'm trying to replicate the cases above, can you give me some examples?

@bruvduroiu commented on GitHub (Jul 9, 2025): Hey @asvishnyakov , I'm trying to replicate the cases above, can you give me some examples?
Author
Owner

@asvishnyakov commented on GitHub (Jul 9, 2025):

@bruvduroiu Previously, when you called add_texts (for example), even though it was a synchronous call, it executed requests in parallel. By removing this parameter - and therefore calling index.upsert with async_req=False - you've degraded performance for synchronous usage and also removed a valid use case. I may want to call Pinecone synchronously, or call it synchronously but still run requests in parallel, and I'm sure people will prefer the last, faster method.

@asvishnyakov commented on GitHub (Jul 9, 2025): @bruvduroiu Previously, when you called add_texts (for example), even though it was a synchronous call, it executed requests in parallel. By removing this parameter - and therefore calling index.upsert with async_req=False - you've degraded performance for synchronous usage and also removed a valid use case. I may want to call Pinecone synchronously, or call it synchronously but still run requests in parallel, and I'm sure people will prefer the last, faster method.
Author
Owner

@bruvduroiu commented on GitHub (Jul 10, 2025):

Thank you for the feedback, this issue is being addressed and should be fixed in the next release.

@bruvduroiu commented on GitHub (Jul 10, 2025): Thank you for the feedback, this issue is being addressed and should be fixed in the next release.
Sign in to join this conversation.
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: langchain-ai/langchain-pinecone#15