> -----Original Message----- > From: Jim C. Nasby [mailto:decibel@xxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 6:55 PM > To: Dann Corbit > Cc: Ben-Nes Yonatan; pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: Populating huge tables each day > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 01:05:42PM -0700, Dann Corbit wrote: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Jim C. Nasby [mailto:decibel@xxxxxxxxxxx] > > > Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 12:58 PM > > > To: Dann Corbit > > > Cc: Ben-Nes Yonatan; pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Subject: Re: Populating huge tables each day > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2005 at 12:43:57PM -0700, Dann Corbit wrote: > > > > I see a lot of problems with this idea. > > > > > > > > You mention that the database is supposed to be available 24x7. > > > > While you are loading, the database table receiving data will not be > > > > available. Therefore, you will have to have one server online (with > > > > > > Why do you think that's the case? > > > > He's doing a bulk load. I assume he will have to truncate the table and > > load it with the copy command. > > Don't ass-u-me; he said he'd be deleting from the main table, not > truncating. > > > Is there an alternative I do not know of that is equally fast? > > Nope, truncate is undoubtedly faster. But it also means you would have > downtime as you mentioned. If it were me, I'd probably make the > trade-off of using a delete inside a transaction. For every record in a bulk loaded table? If it were that important that both servers be available all the time, I would bulk load into a second table with the same shape and then rename when completed. Be that as it may, I don't think that there is enough information yet to give good advice. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
