Sorry for being "Captain Obvious" -
If you use this method, just remember to have the necessary storage
capacity available for two versions of the table in question.
Med venlig hilsen / Kind regards
Bo Victor Thomsen
Den 04-08-2022 kl. 01:18 skrev Scott Ribe:
> On Aug 3, 2022, at 5:06 PM, Thomaz Luiz Santos <thomaz.santos@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I have one question: is it possible to minimize the downtime for this process ( because this table is large. ),
usinganother 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
droppingthe table requires an exclusive lock for the obvious reason, so if you have a long-running transaction using
thattable, 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
structureof 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
basedon 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 ;-)
andconstraints ;-)
>
>
>
>
