Re: Table has 22 million records, but backup doesn't see them

From: Steve Crawford <scrawford(at)pinpointresearch(dot)com>
To: Radcon Entec <radconentec(at)yahoo(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Table has 22 million records, but backup doesn't see them
Date: 2009-04-08 17:15:55
Message-ID: 49DCDBCB.3080003@pinpointresearch.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Radcon Entec wrote:
>
>
> Here is the text that results from dumping my 22-million-row feedback
> table:
>
> ...
>
> CREATE RULE feedback_partition_active AS ON INSERT TO feedback WHERE
> (new.charge > 7000) DO INSTEAD INSERT INTO feedback_active (charge,
> elapsed_time, tag_type, stack, tag_value, heating, status) VALUES
> (new.charge, new.elapsed_time, new.tag_type, new.stack, new.tag_value,
> new.heating, new.status);
>
> ...
>
> CREATE RULE feedback_partition_archived AS ON INSERT TO feedback WHERE
> (new.charge <= 7000) DO INSTEAD INSERT INTO feedback_archived_7000
> (charge, elapsed_time, tag_type, stack, tag_value, heating, status)
> VALUES (new.charge, new.elapsed_time, new.tag_type, new.stack,
> new.tag_value, new.heating, new.status);
>

Are you certain that feedback actually contains any data or is it just
the parent table and the real data is in the child tables? What is the
output of "select count(*) from only feedback;" ?

Cheers,
Steve

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Radcon Entec 2009-04-08 17:46:39 Re: Table has 22 million records, but backup doesn't see them
Previous Message Ivan Sergio Borgonovo 2009-04-08 17:04:58 Re: Are there performance advantages in storing bulky field in separate table?