On Tue, Jun 28, 2005 at 10:36:58AM -0700, Dann Corbit wrote: > > 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? Sure. If the data's only being loaded once a day, it probably doesn't matter if that delete takes 10 minutes. > 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. Interesting idea, though the problem is that AFAIK everything will block on the rename. If everything didn't block though, this might be a better way to do it, although it potentially complicates the code greatly (think about needing to add indexes, rebuild RI, etc.) -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant decibel@xxxxxxxxxxx Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828 Windows: "Where do you want to go today?" Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?" FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?" ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
