This feature is definitely on our roadmap. Unfortunately it’s a pretty big undertaking for technical reasons, and we haven’t had the chance to tackle it yet. We hear and appreciate your feedback on this though, apologies for not acknowledging it earlier.
How are we coming on this, @Andrew? This would be a game changer!
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 I’m not sure if I’m too late to the game here, but since we don’t have any changes reflecting those 3 questions I’m assuming it’s still in the works?
-
Permissions are a big deal for me. I use airtable as the master brains/organizer for my artist agency, and I would like for each artist to only see records relevant to them and to be notified when changes are made to their records. Hidden/redacted tables, views, etc would make it much more functional for us, thought linking multiple bases would be a more complete solution.
-
It makes sense for us to have a master base where we can work out of that can populate the other bases. Of course that master base could also be updated from the other bases depending on what is linked between the two.
-
Absolutely! My base feels bloated and unorganized (ironically). I have about a dozen tables that relate to each other - My artists (pricing info, availability, booking information, logistics), Schools and Venues who I book for (over 1,000 with information about their institution which is linked to Contacts and their information, Projects that I am managing for each of the artists, Promotion for each, Bookings, and Accounting, just to mention the primary linked tables. I could do with far less columns as well in each table if I didn’t have to cram every possible scenario of data that I need into one base.
Other considerations: I would allow for various options in the setting. Personally, I would allow for any Base B data that’s linked to be viewable but not editable if they don’t have permissions for it. Another alternative would be to give editing power to data that is linked, but allow for giving contributors only permissions to view or edit certain Views and not the entire base. Part of it is just going to come down to people being smart setting up their bases.
I LOVE airtable, but I’ve been beating my head against the wall, search for 3rd party integrations, and everything else for hours and hours over the past several months trying to solve some crucial problems in our work flow. @Airtable if there is a work task force on this, sign me up! And definitely for the beta as well. Thank you for your hard work!
@Katherine_Duh I’m not sure if I’m too late to the game here, but since we don’t have any changes reflecting those 3 questions I’m assuming it’s still in the works?
-
Permissions are a big deal for me. I use airtable as the master brains/organizer for my artist agency, and I would like for each artist to only see records relevant to them and to be notified when changes are made to their records. Hidden/redacted tables, views, etc would make it much more functional for us, thought linking multiple bases would be a more complete solution.
-
It makes sense for us to have a master base where we can work out of that can populate the other bases. Of course that master base could also be updated from the other bases depending on what is linked between the two.
-
Absolutely! My base feels bloated and unorganized (ironically). I have about a dozen tables that relate to each other - My artists (pricing info, availability, booking information, logistics), Schools and Venues who I book for (over 1,000 with information about their institution which is linked to Contacts and their information, Projects that I am managing for each of the artists, Promotion for each, Bookings, and Accounting, just to mention the primary linked tables. I could do with far less columns as well in each table if I didn’t have to cram every possible scenario of data that I need into one base.
Other considerations: I would allow for various options in the setting. Personally, I would allow for any Base B data that’s linked to be viewable but not editable if they don’t have permissions for it. Another alternative would be to give editing power to data that is linked, but allow for giving contributors only permissions to view or edit certain Views and not the entire base. Part of it is just going to come down to people being smart setting up their bases.
I LOVE airtable, but I’ve been beating my head against the wall, search for 3rd party integrations, and everything else for hours and hours over the past several months trying to solve some crucial problems in our work flow. @Airtable if there is a work task force on this, sign me up! And definitely for the beta as well. Thank you for your hard work!
That’s almost exactly what I’m seeing altho my environment is quite different (healthcare). I’m tracking documents across multiple companies, hospitals, doctors, and state agencies with the normal contact information, etc. My base is now around 40 tables and since there is quite a bit of linking, each table carries the additional linkage fields. I know I can cut back using views but it would be far better to segregate the different areas-of-concern into their own bases and provide cross-base linking.
Of course having a well-honed set of permissions would also be critical.
This would be a great feature! I’m novice with Airtable and really in love with it.
SUB-BASES & Linking to reports in a Main Base…please! Otherwise I don’t think Airtable will work for our company :frowning: I am trying to figure out a way to utilize it, because I think it is amazing, but we have over 500 unique events a year, pulling from the same inventory record/table, each having multiple tables of their own inside their base. If they could all live in a Master base… Perhaps this can be done and I am just too new to figure it out? Seems like if people have been asking for this for two years, welll… :) :slightly_smiling_face: :smiling_face_with_sunglasses:
SUB-BASES & Linking to reports in a Main Base…please! Otherwise I don’t think Airtable will work for our company :frowning: I am trying to figure out a way to utilize it, because I think it is amazing, but we have over 500 unique events a year, pulling from the same inventory record/table, each having multiple tables of their own inside their base. If they could all live in a Master base… Perhaps this can be done and I am just too new to figure it out? Seems like if people have been asking for this for two years, welll… :) :slightly_smiling_face: :smiling_face_with_sunglasses:
This is really a necessity for us in order to continue using airtable
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 to #1 and #2. The first reason to link across databases is for more granular security control. I like your other approach with table and even field level access control. That would be preferable. The second reason would be for reporting sometimes you want to keep bases separate but integrate for a more holistic view.
+1 vote for this feature! @Airtable_Team @Katherine_Duh @Airtable_Support can you please provide an update on this?
absolutely +1 on this. currently using asana and google drive for the majority of our workflow and i’m experimenting to see if airtable can become the new happy medium for my team.
we have so much data between the number of freelancers and clients and short-term jobs that we do that it’s just unrealistic to simply keep EVERYTHING in one base – even with copy and pasting capabilities. if i wanted to simply copy and paste some data from one table to another i would just continue to use google drive!
+1 vote for this feature! @Airtable_Team @Katherine_Duh @Airtable_Support can you please provide an update on this?
+1 vote for this feature! @Airtable_Team @Katherine_Duh @Airtable_Support
:scream: We need this!
Maybe this Zapier function can help to divide certain bases from each other:
Add new Airtable records to a second base
Track data in two Airtable bases at once. Use this Zap to grab any new Airtable record from one base, and duplicate it in anoter Airtable base. That way your records are always where you need them, without any extra effort.
How this Airtable integration works
Someone adds a new record to your Airtable base
Zapier copies info from that record over to another Airtable base
Link:
https://zapier.com/app/editor/template/12917
Maybe this Zapier function can help to divide certain bases from each other:
Add new Airtable records to a second base
Track data in two Airtable bases at once. Use this Zap to grab any new Airtable record from one base, and duplicate it in anoter Airtable base. That way your records are always where you need them, without any extra effort.
How this Airtable integration works
Someone adds a new record to your Airtable base
Zapier copies info from that record over to another Airtable base
Link:
https://zapier.com/app/editor/template/12917
This is interesting - thank you for sharing. There’s no way to keep records in sync however right - this is a one time process that wouldn’t pick up on future changes to these records right?
Maybe this Zapier function can help to divide certain bases from each other:
Add new Airtable records to a second base
Track data in two Airtable bases at once. Use this Zap to grab any new Airtable record from one base, and duplicate it in anoter Airtable base. That way your records are always where you need them, without any extra effort.
How this Airtable integration works
Someone adds a new record to your Airtable base
Zapier copies info from that record over to another Airtable base
Link:
https://zapier.com/app/editor/template/12917
Thanks @Avi_Doe, I’ll try this soon.
Manually creating copies of new records in my redacted base published in Airtable Universe is painful.
It’s tempting to add a checkbox to every record and filter for records with this field checked to then Zap a copy across to the redacted base.
+1 me too. this would help us a lot.
+1. Agreed. It will be really be a useful feature if you are managing various bases and only want to share specific bases.
Maybe this Zapier function can help to divide certain bases from each other:
Add new Airtable records to a second base
Track data in two Airtable bases at once. Use this Zap to grab any new Airtable record from one base, and duplicate it in anoter Airtable base. That way your records are always where you need them, without any extra effort.
How this Airtable integration works
Someone adds a new record to your Airtable base
Zapier copies info from that record over to another Airtable base
Link:
https://zapier.com/app/editor/template/12917
Avi, your solution is great, except (fair warning) it is handicapped by ANOTHER key weakness in Airtable: the lack of an “on updated record” event. You can use Zapier (and other tools) to call actions when new records are created. But there is no way to call an action when a record is updated. So if you change data to an existing record in one base, it won’t be reflected in the other.
This feature is definitely on our roadmap. Unfortunately it’s a pretty big undertaking for technical reasons, and we haven’t had the chance to tackle it yet. We hear and appreciate your feedback on this though, apologies for not acknowledging it earlier.
Hey @Andrew,
Your answer goes back to January.
We’re almost in Novemeber…
Can you please tell us where is this feature now ?
Thanks
@Ben and frozen yes, unfortunately it is only a oneway solution. An “on updated record” could help to extend the range of functions and bring the whole thing to a new level.
I love Airtable and this feature requests if it were granted would just make me love it even more!
My first post… 'cos I’m evaluating if Airtable is a fit for my company.
I’m looking at building an ‘agency model’ where I create the master bases, and give my clients a set of sub-bases that can link to my master bases… I’m doing it with Google Sheets - and other cloud based platforms, but wanting to consolidate onto 1 place for all my data.
#following
Excel can do it, Access can do it, all databases can do it! This is extremely important feature! Upvote
Is there an update to linking bases? This request was created back in 2015
+1 this. A few of us are evaluating airbase for our non-profit and the first thing I was asked was if we can link between bases.
Here’s my use-case: I have a base for all email marketing. In something like a project manager, an email task could live in two categories: one of all my emails, and one the specific project. Right now, I either have to choose whether to put an email in email base (therefore seeing a larger view of all emails I need to create for different initiatives) or my smaller project (therefore not seeing it with my master list). Sure, I could copy/paste records, but that creates extra work and more room for error. I’d rather just link it, and then my coworkers can see a master view of everything in their project (which would include things like, emails, website updates, firect mail, etc). If I had everything in one base, the sheer amount of data would be too much - even with the powerful filtering features (which I use a lot).
Please add this - Airtable is basically being compared to basic features in excel, and if we can’t meet those then we may not be able to continue with Airtable.
Since this is not a feature that AirTable offers, has anybody found a different tool that integrates with AirTable or used the API to build this functionality? I’m primarily looking for reporting across mutliple bases.
I’d like to chime in with a vote for this as well! We are just getting set up with AirTable (and loving it so far!), and even with our limited experience, I’ve already come across a use case for which linking between bases would be really, really helpful. Here are the details:
-
We have one base called “Resource Partners,” which contains the names of companies we work with, names & contact information for the people we work with there, and even a rating of the company & a “grade” for how frequently we work with them.
-
Another base is “New Business Development,” and it is essentially our sales pipeline. In this base, we want to include the names of the businesses in “Resource Partners” that we’ve sent requests for quotes to, whether they’ve replied, and what their quoted fees were. We don’t need all the names of the people who work for each company in this base, though.
I would love to be able to mark a bid as “Accepted” in the “New Business Development” base, and have that trigger an update in the “Resource Partners” base showing that they’ve been hired for an additional project.
Just wondering – would base-linking serve as a work-around for that other frequently requested feature – more granular permissions? I think either approach would address my use case: I have a “master base” that contains pricing, client and project information, and I want collaborators to be able to view and update some, but not all, of the fields and/or records. It’s obvious that granular permissions could accomplish this, but I think linking records across bases would solve most of the issues (i.e. on base would hold the pricing data, and it would link to the client and project bases).
