From: | Scott Ribe <scott_ribe(at)elevated-dev(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Thomaz Luiz Santos <thomaz(dot)santos(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: doubts |
Date: | 2022-08-03 23:18:41 |
Message-ID: | 9493A23B-213C-4479-82FD-1AAE18127655@elevated-dev.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Aug 3, 2022, at 5:06 PM, Thomaz Luiz Santos <thomaz(dot)santos(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> I have one question: is it possible to minimize the downtime for this process ( because this table is large. ), using another strategy, like one view and updating the view ?
Yes, using a view and redefining it after the new data is loaded would work. You could also:
- load new data into a new table
- begin transaction
- drop old table
- rename new table
- commit
The drop/rename dance executes very quickly because it's just manipulating catalog entries--with the caveat that dropping the table requires an exclusive lock for the obvious reason, so if you have a long-running transaction using that table, you can wind up waiting for it.
Look at the docs for CREATE TABLE and the "LIKE" option, which gives you a shortcut to creating a table with the structure of an existing one.
One peculiarity you might or might not care about: when you create your indexes on the new table, they will be named based on that table's name, and when you rename it the indexes don't get renamed. Personally, I am OK with "my_table_temp_some_idx" on "my_table", but if this offends your sensibilities, you can always rename the indexes ;-) and constraints ;-)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bo Victor Thomsen | 2022-08-04 07:27:33 | Re: doubts |
Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2022-08-03 23:12:54 | Re: doubts |