Re: continuous copy/update one table to another

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 6:29 PM, John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com> wrote:
> Szymon Guz wrote:
>>
>> Different doesn't mean that the id should be greater or lower, rather
>> should be different. I'd rather do something like:
>
> indeed, my code assumed that records were only INSERT'd into table1 and
> never UPDATE or DELETE'd.  my statement -did- have the advantage of being
> fast, at least assuming the id is an index on both tables.   if you do
> update records, you could use a seperate SERIAL/BIGSERIAL field for this,
> which you update on your INSERT's, and use this bigserial for your inserts,
> but you'd need a UPSERT kind of function to handle duplicate primary keys.
>
> checking for deletions will be more difficult and more importantly, more
> time consuming as it will likely require multiple full table scans of both
> tables.
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
>

One more question. This is a pretty decent sized table. It is
estimated to be 19,038,200 rows. That said, should I see results
immediately pouring into the destination table while this is running?