On Aug 3, 2022, at 5:06 PM, Thomaz Luiz Santos <thomaz.santos@xxxxxxxxx> 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 ;-)
