So happy that someone finally filled the void left by Dabble DB.
One of the features I found most useful there, but can’t seem to do in Airtable, is linking to entries in another Base. Often, one will have multiple bases which handle distinct aspects of a business or project, but in which one piece of data overlaps.
Example: A political campaign may want Bases for contacting voters, managing events, and recording donations. Those are distinct domains which need their own Bases, but which could benefit from linking parts of them together. For example, it would be great to link donations to the event they occurred at, or voters to donations, or record who attended each event.
In Airtable at present one has to either cram all of those bases into one, or foregoe the linkage which makes this software so great. It may seem like a small thing, but once you can link bases, the sky is really the limit.
Page 16 / 20
Linking to separate bases would help our productivity and transparency as well. Permissions are a big piece of this, with our proprietary information. Additionally, there doesn’t seem to be an easy way to attach documents in multiple places without downloading and re-attaching again (assuming you don’t have access to the original scanned document). Click and drag without having to download again would be a very helpful feature!
If you’re viewing the records in a Grid view, you can actually just CTRL+C (copy) on the attachment field, and CTRL+V (paste) on another attachment field, even on a different base. It’s very quick and easy
It’s not a workaround for permissions, just letting you know how I attach multiple documents quickly in case it helps you as well
This feature would be essential for workflow at my organisation. We use Airtable as a contacts database for contacts across a number of different areas - media, government, general public, donors, public servants, board and committee members and other stakeholders. Each of these ‘categories’ has a completely different set of data associated with it. For instance, media contacts are linked to specific programs and reports, donors have all donor history and event attendance, board and committee members have details of the meetings they’ve attended, and so on. Currently we have an enormous spreadsheet with so many different views that it’s almost impossible to manage.
In addition to this, we also have a second base called ‘key metrics’, which basically pulls together all meetings had by our CEO and program directors, and categorises them into type, eg. speech, presentation, forum, media mention, etc. This information needs to be kept completely separate from the contact database, but the names of people met with and their organisation will come from the central list. Currently we have a lot of issues of data integrity. It’s not possible to create another view in the central list for the metrics because the information is completely different and we already have 18 views just for contacts, based on the information that we need about each.
Linking bases would literally make life so much easier for us. We could have all our contacts in the central list, then have a separate base for metrics , another base for donor history, another for events - pulling names and organisations across where appropriate but storing a completely different dataset.
I’m not sure linking bases is the right answer to my situation. I collaborate with clients and do this by setting up individual bases in another team because views are read only and clients need to collaborate with me in airtable. This is a poor structure. I should have one table of milestones, tasks, accounts, plans and so on.
I have been thinking about a few options:
View sharing with editor type with more advanced privileges such as only seeing records for thier account. Then I could be working with many clients in one base. The only barrier being per user pricing of infrequent users in my pro team $$$.
Another option might be the ability to duplicate a base to a different team as an instance / child base that runs off the master base data and yet has it’s own privileges. Like a view except it is the whole base.
Or make tables independent of bases entirely and have back end tables accessible by multiple bases. Create new base and select existing tables or create tables.
Yep. backend table libraries are what are needed. Like a real database. eg create new base, select tables to include. viola …
Clearly, this is a very popular feature request! As Andrew said above, it’s certainly something that we are thinking about, though there are a variety of technical hurdles that would need to be cleared first. Since this is a huge undertaking, we want to make sure that we approach this in the correct way. Any specific ideas on how and why you’d want linked bases to work would be greatly appreciated!
Based on your responses, it seems like there are at least few reasons why one might want to link across bases, all of which raise interesting questions that we need to consider going forward:
Linking across bases could work as a form of granular permissioning (e.g. the Sales team has access to the sales base, and the PR team has access to the PR base, and though they might be able to see selected data from the other team’s base, they wouldn’t necessarily be able to alter it or read all of it). If this is your main reason for wanting cross-base linking: would your needs be met by Airtable implementing more granular permissioning controls at the table level or even the field level (e.g., password protected/hidden/redacted tables/fields that certain users are not allowed to see)? Is it more important to you that different users have access to different bases for privacy reasons (i.e. it’s mission critical that certain users don’t see certain bits of information), or for convenience reasons (i.e. I don’t want all users to see everything in one big base because not all of that data is relevant to their interests)?
Using linking across bases in order to create a manager/“master” base, which draws information from a number of sub-bases. Would your needs be met in this case by some sort of reporting functionality that takes information from many bases, or is it particularly important that this information takes the form of another base?
(Please correct me if I’m wrong about this.) A general sense that a large base with many tables feels cramped—that you have to “cram” what feels like too much data into one place. If this describes you, can you articulate why you feel this way? Is it because of how a base with many tables looks? Is it because of loading times? Is it because you feel like having too much information in one place is overwhelming?
Other considerations: How would you like linking across bases to interact with permissions? Say there are two bases, A and B. A user has access to Base A but not access to Base B, and Base A includes links to Base B. What should the user see when they look at Base A? How would linking across bases work with editing? Should you be able to edit the contents of Base B while in Base A, or should you have to go to Base B first?
There are so many things to say about linking bases, but this is enough for now, I think. :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:
Would it be possible to simply have a table that is duplicated, placed within another base directly linked to its origin (table to table link)? Instead of database permissions being granted, only table permissions.
Keeping assets that are utilized for multiple projects in a single base that can be access externally would also be useful.
The concept of everything in one base also fills storage limits much more quickly, especially with movie projects.
Thanks! Love Airtable!
The lack of this function is a fundamental flaw that contradicts the universal organization of a business.
Business is fundamentally about coordinating tasks between different facilitators (employees) to produce a product. A product has lifecycle stages (production, marketing, sales, customer service) that require different departments to facilitate it’s fulfillment, as well as departments to facilitate internal business items (legal, finance, admin, biz dev, R&D). Departments are grouped based on common skillsets and knowledge and have their own systems/procedures/data/assets etc which require different access levels - because you don’t want your production team looking at your sales pipeline and seeing how much money you make in your financials or viewing employee reviews and sensitive data in HR.
All business data is created around one central thing: the business! Therefore, a business’s data must be collective and relational, yet must be compartmentalized via different departments.
This is the problem with project management software - it is usually created with only one or 2 departments in mind, because it’s extremely challenging to make something that indeed does combine all data yet compartmentalize: you need a database program to do it…
Airtable is nearly the unicorn where you can actually run an entire business with all tasks and data in one place between different departments. The visualizations and functions are unbelievably amazing - yet you don’t allow the compartmentalization of departments through different bases, which fundamentally contradicts business.
To properly have collective relational data you must currently have all departments in one base, which means 1x base is theoretically the equivalent to 1x entire company, which makes Workspaces obsolete, and violates the rule of the need for department compartmentalization.
I would say the day is saved if zapier had a ‘update record then updates another record’ capability to sync records but I only see ‘new record updates another record’ so that means records cannot sync between bases through zapier… I hope I’m wrong and there’s a solution here…???
If you fix this one function a teenager could run a fortune 500 conglomerate from a Starbucks… hope it happens!
** Edit - just found @openside.com so that’ll prob do the trick, def a little pricey but well worth it I’m sure.
For us it’s because we already need multiple tables within one base to manage are Product teams, but we have many different Product teams globally working in different cultures and company environments, so we would like to allow them flexibility (Airtables greatest strength similar to Trello), to do their own thing with admin level and be able to summarise it for example group wide status or gantt chart views
After several rebuilds I’ve determined a method that reduces tables needed, also eliminating the need for a second base. Requiring only using each record in only one place.
The logic involved requires forgetting almost everything you think you know about database functionality. If anyone is interested I will gladly help.
Airtable should hire me! I’d have a lot of fun evolving it’s uses.
Do you have Zoom? We can set up a call ana i can show you what I’m doing. Otherwise I’ll be putting together a video explaining it soon.
Thanks,
Shawn
Clearly, this is a very popular feature request! As Andrew said above, it’s certainly something that we are thinking about, though there are a variety of technical hurdles that would need to be cleared first. Since this is a huge undertaking, we want to make sure that we approach this in the correct way. Any specific ideas on how and why you’d want linked bases to work would be greatly appreciated!
Based on your responses, it seems like there are at least few reasons why one might want to link across bases, all of which raise interesting questions that we need to consider going forward:
Linking across bases could work as a form of granular permissioning (e.g. the Sales team has access to the sales base, and the PR team has access to the PR base, and though they might be able to see selected data from the other team’s base, they wouldn’t necessarily be able to alter it or read all of it). If this is your main reason for wanting cross-base linking: would your needs be met by Airtable implementing more granular permissioning controls at the table level or even the field level (e.g., password protected/hidden/redacted tables/fields that certain users are not allowed to see)? Is it more important to you that different users have access to different bases for privacy reasons (i.e. it’s mission critical that certain users don’t see certain bits of information), or for convenience reasons (i.e. I don’t want all users to see everything in one big base because not all of that data is relevant to their interests)?
Using linking across bases in order to create a manager/“master” base, which draws information from a number of sub-bases. Would your needs be met in this case by some sort of reporting functionality that takes information from many bases, or is it particularly important that this information takes the form of another base?
(Please correct me if I’m wrong about this.) A general sense that a large base with many tables feels cramped—that you have to “cram” what feels like too much data into one place. If this describes you, can you articulate why you feel this way? Is it because of how a base with many tables looks? Is it because of loading times? Is it because you feel like having too much information in one place is overwhelming?
Other considerations: How would you like linking across bases to interact with permissions? Say there are two bases, A and B. A user has access to Base A but not access to Base B, and Base A includes links to Base B. What should the user see when they look at Base A? How would linking across bases work with editing? Should you be able to edit the contents of Base B while in Base A, or should you have to go to Base B first?
There are so many things to say about linking bases, but this is enough for now, I think. :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:
Yes, 1, 2, & 3 are all reasons for wanting cross base linking.
Reason 1: Permissions-- I do film & video production. There are all sorts of layers of permissioning requirements. I don’t want my actors poking around my casting data. I don’t want random crew members to have access to an actor’s private cell number. I don’t need the crew to see us frantically tinkering with the production schedule to make our budget. The easiest way to manage permissioning is by base, but if you can’t link the bases together, you have to custom permission each table for every single member of the production team. That’s time consuming and odds are good that you’re going to miss something and private data will slip through the cracks. (You asked about more granular permissioning. For the reasons stated above, I’m not a fan of solving the problem with more elaborate permissioning options. Bases are a much tidier way to visualize the walls between data than permission options. And individually permissioning rows & columns of 10 different tables for a team of 50 people would be a huge headache.)
Reason 2: Manager/Master lists: One of the primary things I manage and track are people. I need to share individual names/contact info across multiple bases and tables. The name/contact info always stays the same (a master list), but that contact info needs to utilized in many different tables, bases, & workspaces. For every single project, I need to assemble a team from scratch. But I tend to draw from the same batch of people-- If I like someone, I generally want to work with them again. So let’s say I have a crew member named Ella. Ella is great with cameras. She’s the cinematographer on one project in Workspace A, the first Assistant Camera on another project in Workspace B, and the camera operator on a 3rd project in Workspace C. But there’s only one Ella. And in every single production in every single workspace, I need to know her e-mail, her phone number, and remember the fact that she is allergic to peanuts so that we don’t send her into anaphylactic shock on set. (Side note, I’d also need all of the data referenced from the master list-- the lookup data containing phone & e-mail addresses-- to work with AirTable blocks-- one of the reasons I downgraded my subscription is that data from lookup fields didn’t work with the blocks. It’s useless to have a roster of crew members that I can’t e-mail in bulk). Having a master list would also help me track lots of other useful info: across all workspaces, how many of my projects as Ella worked on? Let’s say I’m looking for a cinematographer for my new project, but Ella isn’t available. Who should I ask? If Air Table allowed cross linking of bases (and reporting), I’d be able to apply a filter to my master contact table and pull up a list of everyone who’s ever been in the camera department on any of my productions.
Reason 3: Clutter. If I’m one company, and I do 5 productions per year, and if each of those productions requires at least 10 tables, at the end of 3 years, I have 150 tables (aaaaaaggggh!). Yes, I could consolidate the data on fewer tables by adding project columns to track which data go with which production, but then, instead of being overwhelmed with tables, I’m now overwhelmed with table rows. And, we get back to the permissioning problem because unless I set up filtered data views for every single production, and track the permissioning for each of those views meticulously, the camera department for Production B can see all the info from previous production A. It could cause problems like the cinematographer asking me “You got a $2000 lens on your last production, why can’t I have it on this production?” It could lead to errors like accidentally assigning a camera rental package to the wrong production. Or sending the entire crew to a location address from production A, when they need to be at the location address for production B.
Yes, 1, 2, & 3 are all reasons for wanting cross base linking.
Reason 1: Permissions-- I do film & video production. There are all sorts of layers of permissioning requirements. I don’t want my actors poking around my casting data. I don’t want random crew members to have access to an actor’s private cell number. I don’t need the crew to see us frantically tinkering with the production schedule to make our budget. The easiest way to manage permissioning is by base, but if you can’t link the bases together, you have to custom permission each table for every single member of the production team. That’s time consuming and odds are good that you’re going to miss something and private data will slip through the cracks. (You asked about more granular permissioning. For the reasons stated above, I’m not a fan of solving the problem with more elaborate permissioning options. Bases are a much tidier way to visualize the walls between data than permission options. And individually permissioning rows & columns of 10 different tables for a team of 50 people would be a huge headache.)
Reason 2: Manager/Master lists: One of the primary things I manage and track are people. I need to share individual names/contact info across multiple bases and tables. The name/contact info always stays the same (a master list), but that contact info needs to utilized in many different tables, bases, & workspaces. For every single project, I need to assemble a team from scratch. But I tend to draw from the same batch of people-- If I like someone, I generally want to work with them again. So let’s say I have a crew member named Ella. Ella is great with cameras. She’s the cinematographer on one project in Workspace A, the first Assistant Camera on another project in Workspace B, and the camera operator on a 3rd project in Workspace C. But there’s only one Ella. And in every single production in every single workspace, I need to know her e-mail, her phone number, and remember the fact that she is allergic to peanuts so that we don’t send her into anaphylactic shock on set. (Side note, I’d also need all of the data referenced from the master list-- the lookup data containing phone & e-mail addresses-- to work with AirTable blocks-- one of the reasons I downgraded my subscription is that data from lookup fields didn’t work with the blocks. It’s useless to have a roster of crew members that I can’t e-mail in bulk). Having a master list would also help me track lots of other useful info: across all workspaces, how many of my projects as Ella worked on? Let’s say I’m looking for a cinematographer for my new project, but Ella isn’t available. Who should I ask? If Air Table allowed cross linking of bases (and reporting), I’d be able to apply a filter to my master contact table and pull up a list of everyone who’s ever been in the camera department on any of my productions.
Reason 3: Clutter. If I’m one company, and I do 5 productions per year, and if each of those productions requires at least 10 tables, at the end of 3 years, I have 150 tables (aaaaaaggggh!). Yes, I could consolidate the data on fewer tables by adding project columns to track which data go with which production, but then, instead of being overwhelmed with tables, I’m now overwhelmed with table rows. And, we get back to the permissioning problem because unless I set up filtered data views for every single production, and track the permissioning for each of those views meticulously, the camera department for Production B can see all the info from previous production A. It could cause problems like the cinematographer asking me “You got a $2000 lens on your last production, why can’t I have it on this production?” It could lead to errors like accidentally assigning a camera rental package to the wrong production. Or sending the entire crew to a location address from production A, when they need to be at the location address for production B.
There’s a solution to this. It’s about how you’re using the product and it’s capabilities.
Please, someone from Airtable, reach out to me. Let’s have a discussion on how to best illustrate what I’m doing to best serve the community.
Until then, I think I can summarize it like this: Use views to create dynamic access the any base. If you must get info from one base to the next, create a form the includes the needed fields in “Base 2”. Add that form into a field within your workflow of “Base 1”. This can be triggered via Zapier, if needed. I personally have determined there to be a need for only one Base for a person. Everything is capable of being limited by view and used as needed for each individual’s unique set of needs and functionality.
Thanks!
There’s a solution to this. It’s about how you’re using the product and it’s capabilities.
Please, someone from Airtable, reach out to me. Let’s have a discussion on how to best illustrate what I’m doing to best serve the community.
Until then, I think I can summarize it like this: Use views to create dynamic access the any base. If you must get info from one base to the next, create a form the includes the needed fields in “Base 2”. Add that form into a field within your workflow of “Base 1”. This can be triggered via Zapier, if needed. I personally have determined there to be a need for only one Base for a person. Everything is capable of being limited by view and used as needed for each individual’s unique set of needs and functionality.
Thanks!
Thanks! I’ll try tinkering with it. Let us know if you post a video demo. I’d love to see it!
Thanks! I’ll try tinkering with it. Let us know if you post a video demo. I’d love to see it!
Hmmmm… I was just playing around with this. I can’t quite figure out what you’re doing to make it work. I can use a link to pull up an input form from one base and add it into another, but I still need to duplicate the data. It is true that one can generate a URL link to individual table records, so I suppose there’s some elaborate Zaper/Integromat hack one could put together-- sending links, record by record, from one base into another, then you could use that link to “point” back to the original record. But it still doesn’t solve the problem of cross linking those items within the new base and its tables (or using the data in any way other than looking at it)
Yes,
Linking data to sync between bases requires automation.
However, I have a method of using data that allows me to only need one base. (Took awhile to illustrate this to others. Our minds are programmed on how data works. That needs undone)
When I wanted to extend a data record into another base I simplified my definition of what was needed. Shortly later I discovered the solution. Everyone’s solution to this will be unique to their needs.
I offered my work to the Airtable team. They don’t have a need for it.
If anyone would like to have a conversation to help you discover your solution, feel free to email me directly and we’ll setup a time. shawnjp@gmail.com
@Air_Table@Katherine_Duh, If we can’t have the ability to link bases, and if we must stuff everything into one base using dozens of tables, could we at least have the ability to put selected tables together into groups? Having some way to group tables, or having some sort of folder structure for tables would be very helpful. Then, by opening a folder, I could immediately pull up all the tables relevant to a particular project or department (instead of selecting them one by one). It would definitely help with some of the visual clutter. If you added permissioning to the folders/groups, it might also solve some of the problems that people are complaining about in this thread. Folders could act as mini-bases within the larger base. Non-relevant or private tables would be filtered out, but one could still use all the linking features. It would basically be a way of bulk-permissioning tables (instead of needing to permission them one by one).
George,
I haven’t made a video or tutorial just yet.
Do you have Zoom? We can set up a call ana i can show you what I’m doing. Otherwise I’ll be putting together a video explaining it soon.
Thanks,
Shawn
Zoom works. Google Hangouts too. Whatever works for you. Always interested in seeing how others use AirTable.
Cheers,
I love airtable for what it is… an easy to setup simple collaborative “database”…ish. It makes my life easy for many tasks that I need to setup quickly and collaboratively.
I was an airtable Pro user for over a year on an oil and gas project. In fact I was the administrator of and owner of the entire IT and workflow process for the project. I got approval to use airtable for the project and we were spending about $300 per month on airtable fees. I had been asking for this feature for over a year, and it would have made our life so much easier.
I ended up starting to convert to ragic.com but the project was over before I was able to complete the transformation. Airtable is good for what it is good for… simple to moderately simple projects.
For more encompassing and customizable solutions Check out Ragic.com … Not as pretty and easy to use, but pricing and customization are far superior.
We need this feature!
The ability to connect bases together has been a topic / request for several years. We have the same issue - who wants to have multiple copies of a contact list in multiple bases?
Is there a reason why this can not be added as a native capability in Airtable?
@Air_Table@Katherine_Duh, If we can’t have the ability to link bases, and if we must stuff everything into one base using dozens of tables, could we at least have the ability to put selected tables together into groups? Having some way to group tables, or having some sort of folder structure for tables would be very helpful. Then, by opening a folder, I could immediately pull up all the tables relevant to a particular project or department (instead of selecting them one by one). It would definitely help with some of the visual clutter. If you added permissioning to the folders/groups, it might also solve some of the problems that people are complaining about in this thread. Folders could act as mini-bases within the larger base. Non-relevant or private tables would be filtered out, but one could still use all the linking features. It would basically be a way of bulk-permissioning tables (instead of needing to permission them one by one).
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think that groups and folders could go a long way to alleviate many of these frustrations. If we’re stuffing all of our data into one base, we need a way to group together not only different tables, but different views within tables. For example, in video production, I have a rentals table which holds rental info for all my departments. Each department gets its own view within that table (Lighting, Art, Wardrobe, Etc.). I also have a Purchases table which holds receipts and shipping info. Each department gets its own view within that table too. I have a Look Book table, so each department can store reference photos. Again, each department gets its own view. So now, my Lighting, Art, and Wardrobe departments each have their relevant info stored deep down in specific views across several different tables. If I’m having a meeting with the Art Department, how do I quickly pull up all the views specific to that department across all the tables? If I want to set up viewing permissions for the Head of Wardrobe, how do I quickly pull up all of the views in all of the tables that I want her to have access to? There’s no efficient way to do either of these things. The search field only lets you search for one table at a time. And even then, it doesn’t let you search for views within tables. The ability to group various tables and/or views together using folders or tags would be immensely helpful. Throw in some colorful icons for the groups and voilà, you have created mini-bases within the larger base.
Zoho Creator does link different bases (applications). Airtable should as well.
I would LOVE to have this feature linking across bases. I’ve already set up a few Zaps on Zapier, but as folks have commented, the zaps are very basic and often break down unless workflows are conducted in a very specific manner that isn’t scalable / enforceable.
Clearly, this is a very popular feature request! As Andrew said above, it’s certainly something that we are thinking about, though there are a variety of technical hurdles that would need to be cleared first. Since this is a huge undertaking, we want to make sure that we approach this in the correct way. Any specific ideas on how and why you’d want linked bases to work would be greatly appreciated!
Based on your responses, it seems like there are at least few reasons why one might want to link across bases, all of which raise interesting questions that we need to consider going forward:
Linking across bases could work as a form of granular permissioning (e.g. the Sales team has access to the sales base, and the PR team has access to the PR base, and though they might be able to see selected data from the other team’s base, they wouldn’t necessarily be able to alter it or read all of it). If this is your main reason for wanting cross-base linking: would your needs be met by Airtable implementing more granular permissioning controls at the table level or even the field level (e.g., password protected/hidden/redacted tables/fields that certain users are not allowed to see)? Is it more important to you that different users have access to different bases for privacy reasons (i.e. it’s mission critical that certain users don’t see certain bits of information), or for convenience reasons (i.e. I don’t want all users to see everything in one big base because not all of that data is relevant to their interests)?
Using linking across bases in order to create a manager/“master” base, which draws information from a number of sub-bases. Would your needs be met in this case by some sort of reporting functionality that takes information from many bases, or is it particularly important that this information takes the form of another base?
(Please correct me if I’m wrong about this.) A general sense that a large base with many tables feels cramped—that you have to “cram” what feels like too much data into one place. If this describes you, can you articulate why you feel this way? Is it because of how a base with many tables looks? Is it because of loading times? Is it because you feel like having too much information in one place is overwhelming?
Other considerations: How would you like linking across bases to interact with permissions? Say there are two bases, A and B. A user has access to Base A but not access to Base B, and Base A includes links to Base B. What should the user see when they look at Base A? How would linking across bases work with editing? Should you be able to edit the contents of Base B while in Base A, or should you have to go to Base B first?
There are so many things to say about linking bases, but this is enough for now, I think. :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:
@Katherine_Duh @Airtable_Admin – The inability to link bases is a massive downside to your otherwise amazing product. My agency does collaborative work with many external vendors and clients. We would LOVE to have them manage/edit their own pieces of the work, but we cannot give them Editor access to our base because it contains sensitive data they should not be able to see – it would be detrimental to our business if they got access to our base to see under the hood (so to speak).
Likewise, I have a non-profit outside of work. My team there creates events with various different entities, and we would love to give them the ability to edit their own tasks, but they should not have the ability to see the other events we are working on. So, with a major event at a world famous museum, we have had to create a separate base only to manage the work from that event – separate to the primary base that contains the rest of our data.
Deeply frustrating.
Better reporting functionality would make your product vastly more appealing to commercial / paying users. We have been struggling with this piece for weeks now, and still can’t provide clear and suitable reports to the C-suite.
I was extremely excited to find Airtable recently, as I could immediately see how this would help me solve tons of issues I have in my company that we could never properly address with any other tool. But I was soon shocked to find that something as essential as linking bases was not possible. Through browsing discussions like this one, I realized this is a 4+ year limitation that is highly requested but nonetheless seems to be going nowhere. Instead of continuing investing my time on Airtable, I am now searching for a competitive product that might have been able to address this requirement in the past 4+ years.
