On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 11:24 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 3:17 AM Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 5:51 AM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Some thoughts/questions on the idea > > I notice that we are always considering block-level parallelism for > heaps and object-level parallelism for indexes. I'm wondering, when > multiple tables are being vacuumed together—either because the user > has provided a list of tables or has specified a partitioned table > with multiple children—does it still make sense to default to > block-level parallelism? Or could we consider table-level parallelism > in such cases? For example, if there are 4 tables and 6 workers, with > 2 tables being small and the other 2 being large, perhaps we could > allocate 4 workers to vacuum all 4 tables in parallel. For the larger > tables, we could apply block-level parallelism, using more workers for > internal parallelism. On the other hand, if all tables are small, we > could just apply table-level parallelism without needing block-level > parallelism at all. This approach could offer more flexibility, isn't > it? >
I have not thought from this angle, but it seems we can build this even on top of block-level vacuum for large tables. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
