← Volver a las guías

LLM Batch Processing vs. Concurrency: A Practical Guide

Batch processing and concurrency solve different problems

When an application needs responses from a large language model (LLM), sending requests one at a time is simple but can be slow. Two common ways to increase throughput are batching work and running requests concurrently. They are related, but they are not interchangeable: batching groups inputs into fewer operations when an API supports it, while concurrency sends multiple independent requests at once.

The right choice depends on whether your priority is lower per-item overhead, faster completion, or a responsive user experience. Before choosing, check the API’s supported request formats, token and request limits, and rate-limit behavior. Do not assume every provider offers an asynchronous batch endpoint or that combining prompts reduces token charges.

Batch processing: fewer operations, more coordination

Batch processing is useful for offline or deferred work such as classifying a product catalog, extracting fields from documents, generating embeddings, or evaluating prompts. If the provider offers a batch endpoint, you can submit a collection of jobs and collect results later. Otherwise, your application can simulate batching by storing records in a queue and processing them in controlled groups.

A practical workflow is to assign each input a stable ID, validate and size the payloads, submit work, and persist the ID-to-result mapping. Record failures per item so one invalid input does not force you to repeat an entire group. For large jobs, checkpoint completed results and make retries idempotent: retrying a failed record should not create duplicate downstream actions.

• Pros: Convenient for bulk workloads, easier to schedule away from peak traffic, and potentially lower orchestration overhead when a provider has a native batch feature.
• Cons: Results may arrive later, partial failures need careful handling, and large groups can be harder to monitor or retry. A batch is not automatically cheaper; pricing and service guarantees depend on the API.

Concurrency: more throughput, more pressure

With concurrency, a worker pool sends several independent requests at the same time. This works well for user-facing tasks where each result should appear as soon as it is ready, and for workloads with varied prompt sizes. A pool of fixed size is usually safer than launching every request immediately: it limits resource use and makes throughput easier to tune.

Start with a conservative number of workers, then measure latency, errors, and tokens per minute. Respect provider rate-limit responses, honor any retry guidance, and use exponential backoff with jitter for transient failures. Set timeouts, cap retries, and avoid retrying permanent errors such as malformed input. If results must follow the original input order, store each result with its input index; concurrent completion order is not predictable.

• Pros: Lower wall-clock time for independent tasks, responsive incremental results, and straightforward scaling by adjusting the worker pool.
• Cons: Unbounded parallelism can trigger throttling, increase retry traffic, and make costs harder to forecast. Concurrency also requires explicit handling of timeouts, ordering, and partial completion.

How to choose and combine them

Use a provider’s batch endpoint when the job can wait and the endpoint’s limits and pricing fit your workload. Use bounded concurrency when latency matters or when you need results as individual requests finish. For a mixed workload, enqueue records in durable storage, run a modest concurrent worker pool, and checkpoint each result. This approach offers control without requiring every task to wait for a large group.

Estimate capacity before scaling: track input and output tokens, requests per minute, tokens per minute, average latency, and error rate. Reduce concurrency when throttling rises; increase it gradually when the service is healthy and workers are waiting on network responses. Keep prompts and outputs within model context limits, and avoid placing unrelated records in one prompt simply to reduce request count, since that can complicate quality checks and retries.

Keep model access affordable

Operational efficiency helps, but model choice and API pricing also shape total cost. 59API provides pay-as-you-go access to Claude Opus, Sonnet, Haiku, Fable, and GPT models through https://api.59api.com. It is designed as a low-cost relay using native, official-quality models rather than downgraded substitutes, and is compatible with Claude Code, Codex, and OpenAI SDKs. Developers can compare models for each task, control spend without committing to a fixed plan, and use its referral rebate. If you are setting up a batch pipeline or concurrent worker pool, consider signing up for 59API and testing your real prompts, latency, and token usage before choosing a production configuration.

Precios · Docs