Cory Thomas

Hey LuisArturo (Clay) thanks for getting back to me. Bo actually replied yesterday via email and said he was going to check the logs on this so not sure if you want to tackle it as well. I am essentially stuck until I find out if it's possible to restore the lost rows though, so if you have any idea on if that's possible, please let me know. The "✅email" column is what had the auto dedupe enabled. I'll DM you the loom I shared with Bo.

To clarify, the row that had auto-deduplication enabled was not the row that was changed to lower case any capital letters in the email column - that was a separate row I had set up that seemed to trigger something within the table that caused rows to start disappearing. Here is the table again: https://app.clay.com/workspaces/77915/workbooks/wb_0swbkzeigkyochJsEKu/tables/t_0swblkgwAxirmpbtXoA/views/gv_0sxqvhrEc5aSFKFiyjA

Thank you!

I appreciate that, but I'd really like to try and stick with Serper for a few different reasons. Are there any other ways you can think of aside from the "write to" and HTTP API columns that I could use to take individual listings like this and turn them into rows?

I'm pulling in Serper results for local businesses. So Serper scrapes a google maps page of 20 listings, then I have one "write to" table column for each listing to create a row for each listing in another table. That's just for one page of results though... ideally I could get more pages of results. I guess the bottleneck is the idea that I need to have one "write to" column for each result though. Do you know of another way I can create a row for each result?

Ok, so if I needed to connect more than that, then the standard recommendation would be to connect the tables via webhooks with the HTTP API enrichment, correct?

Ok, so what is the limit of the number of tables I can have connected together irrespective of if I have a lot of other "write to" functions within each table? And just to clarify, it doesn't necessarily matter if I'm interconnecting tables with the "write to" function - just the mere fact of using a lot of "write to" functions is data intensive and will reduce the number of tables I can connect together?

Hey Bo (Clay) thanks for the quick reply. Does it matter how many "write to table"s I have within each of those ten tables? For instance, how many tables could I have if each table had 20 "write to" columns that all wrote data to Table X?