| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomaz Luiz Santos <thomaz(dot)santos(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: doubts |
| Date: | 2022-08-03 23:12:54 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwZmnEQWoABFTCZ_NW5eCSdyXEzPAkYd1xSweW8b_e4H8A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 4:06 PM Thomaz Luiz Santos <thomaz(dot)santos(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
>
> I need to refresh the data in one table, but I use one truncate to clean
> the data and insert again the new data,
>
> 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 ?
>
>
Temporary and/or unlogged tables?
Truncate and insert is the fastest you can do if every record has to change.
Otherwise, "maybe" is about the best you should expect if you are going to
be that generic and non-specific regarding "process".
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Scott Ribe | 2022-08-03 23:18:41 | Re: doubts |
| Previous Message | Thomaz Luiz Santos | 2022-08-03 23:06:26 | doubts |