Re: VACUUM PARALLEL option vs. max_parallel_maintenance_workers

On Sat, 3 Oct 2020 at 20:03, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 9:23 PM Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 3:20 AM David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > It would be good if we were consistent with these parallel options.
> > > Right now max_parallel_workers_per_gather will restrict the
> > > parallel_workers reloption. I'd say this
> > > max_parallel_workers_per_gather is similar to
> > > max_parallel_maintenance_workers here and the PARALLEL vacuum option
> > > is like the parallel_workers reloption.
> > >
> > > If we want VACUUM's parallel option to work the same way as that then
> > > max_parallel_maintenance_workers should restrict whatever is mentioned
> > > in VACUUM PARALLEL.
> > >
> > > Or perhaps this is slightly different as the user is explicitly asking
> > > for this in the command, but you could likely say the same about ALTER
> > > TABLE <table> SET (parallel_workers = N); too.
> >
> > There is a subtle difference between these two cases. In the case of a
> > query, there may be multiple table scans involved, all under the same
> > Gather node. So a limit on the Gather node is to some degree a
> > separate constraint on the overall query plan from the reloption
> > applied to a particular table. So there is at least some kind of an
> > argument that it's sensible to combine those limits somehow. I'm not
> > sure I believe it, though. The user probably wants exactly the number
> > of workers they specify, not the GUC value.
> >
> > However, in the VACUUM case, there's no possibility of distinguishing
> > between the parallel operation as a whole and the expectations for a
> > particular table. It's a single operation.
> >
>
>
> But the same is true for the 'Create Index' operation as well where we
> follow the same thing. We will use the number of workers as specified
> in reloption (parallel_workers) which is then limited by
> max_parallel_maintenance_workers.

Both opinions have a valid point.

To make the behavior of parallel vacuum more consistent with other
parallel maintenance commands (i.g., only parallel INDEX CREATE for
now), as a second idea, can we make use of parallel_workers reloption
in parallel vacuum case as well? That is, when PARALLEL option without
an integer is specified or VACUUM command without PARALLEL option, the
parallel degree is the number of indexes that support parallel vacuum
and are bigger than min_parallel_index_scan_size. If the
parallel_workers reloption of the table is set we use it instead. In
both cases, the parallel degree is capped by
max_parallel_maintenance_workers. OTOH when PARALLEL option with an
integer is specified, the parallel degree is the specified integer
value and it's capped by max_parallel_workers and the number of
indexes that support parallel vacuum and are bigger than
min_parallel_index_scan_size.

That way the default behavior and the behavior of PARALLEL option
without an integer is similar to parallel CREATE INDEX. In addition to
it, VACUUM command has an additional way to control the parallel
degree beyond max_parallel_maintenance_workers limit by using the
command option.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services