Duplicating Records in Group View only

I am an artist working with various companies in various Markets/Categories (ie: greeting cards, home decor, stationery, and gift).

Some companies are in multiple markets such as greeting cards & gift; whereas other companies just serve one. Think Micheal’s v.s. Hallmark. The former serves multiple markets while the latter is likely just greeting cards (just go with me).

So now that you have the back story, I’d like to be able to Group by Markets/Categories, BUT, I would like a record to duplicate itself in this view to list in BOTH greeting cards and gift. I DON’T want it to be Grouped as “Greeting Cards, Gift” because it could be the only company listed as such.

First screen shot shows my basic table prior to grouping:

Second screen shot shows what it looks like after grouping. I’d like Company 1 to be split (duplicated) into both Gift Bags and then also Party Paper (IN ONLY THIS GROUP VIEW) To be clear: I want Party Paper to be it’s own group without me having to create duplicate listings of the same company.

Is this possible? Thanks!


So you would like the grouping to look like this?

Yes! Is that some Photoshop magic or is there a way to do this? (I’d prefer not to permanently duplicate a row).

lol, yeah, that was some “paint shop” magic… to my knowledge there is no good way to achieve what you are trying to do using the “Group” feature.

So, I agree that this would be nice to be able to do, and hopefully Airtable adds this to their “to-do” list.

However, there is a … somewhat reasonable work around available:

###Create a new table** called *“Category/Market Info”

  1. In the new table, name the first field in that table something like "CatName"
  2. make sure it has all the values you need.

###Go to your “Attendee Registration” Table

  1. Rename your “Category/Market Info” field to something else (“tmp”).

  2. Create a new field called "Category/Market Info"
    and make it a linked field to your newly created “Category/Market Info” table.

  3. Populate that newly created field with those old values from "tmp"

###Go to your “Category/Market Info” Table
*in this table, you can now at least view all the records linked to each category…

It is not a perfect solution, but you can get results something like this:


Thanks Matthew! This will be great.

You’re doing a Many-to-many relation, and in database modeling this forces you to have an auxiliary table (with those “duplicate” rows -ids of the companies, really-). Airtable allows you to link several records to other, but then you can’t do some things (as you have experienced).

Here you have, now the aux. table is which does the magic. I have created 2 different views, explore the base:


Thank you, Elias! I’ll have to readjust my tables, but I think this will work as intended.

I wish they would fix this so that the user doesn’t have to create another table just to split out that field.

1 Like

Seems like you either un-shared the base or deleted it. Any chance you’d be willing to re-share it?

I’ve deleted it, but it’s something like this:

1 Like

I can’t find a use case for the current grouping implementation. Surely most people are grouping by the select or linked field to get all items under each individual select or link item.

It would be great to have a keep together or group individually option in the group by dialog.

eg content grouped by platform where item a has multi select values for facebook, video, website

Group header: Website
-item a
GH: Facebook
-item a
GH: Video
-item a

not: Group header = video, facebook, website

  • item a

@Elias_Gomez_Sainz can you please re-share this base as I’m have the same issue.

It seems I’ve deleted it :frowning:

You can check this: https://support.airtable.com/hc/en-us/articles/218734758-A-beginner-s-guide-to-many-to-many-relationships

Oh, you have this one: https://airtable.com/shr9WkhOfZ2d4Lcl6/tbliFxgSP4XHQEc5c/viwgotiPZkpeVMTNl

This would be incredible useful. I find myself wanting @Megan_Dunagan 's behavior any time that I do a grouping.

I have been waiting for this for a while now and see that this conversation and others like it are pretty old. It’s reasons like this that I am not paying for this product. If I have 2 tables, each with hundreds of records, I find it ridiculous that I have to make another table using data from the first 2 just to display groups properly. It seems like a simple fix to make it so the grouping is by individual record and not as a group. It’s also silly that having records in a different order (A,B and B,A) will display as 2 groups. Are there any developers at Airtable that are willing to address this for users, please? Do this and a couple other things and you will start getting my money.


I’m pretty disappointed that this feature isn’t available. If I wanted to deal with join tables and many-to-many relationships, I’d just use a database. Airtable is appealing to me because it (usually) frees me from having to deal with databases and allows me to organize my data in a way that’s intuitive to me.

If a record has two values in a field, and you group by that field, in which of those groups would you include it? Remember that you only have ONE record that cannot be in two groups at the same time.

The whole point is that it should appear in both. The “tables” in Airtable are already views, not true relational tables. The point is that this wouldn’t be the default option; anyone choosing to have their records displayed this way would either already know that some records will appear more than once, or could be shown a warning message informing them of this. I don’t see what the problem is–the whole point of Airtable is to liberate people from the arcane restrictions of SQL databases while still providing some of the same advanced functionality.

Basically, the result would be the same as the result a GROUP BY query, except that the fields would be editable. Changing anything in either of the resultant records would change it in both.

I see at least one problem: that aggregated calculations. Although of course, they could be also fixed to user every record just one time.

Anyway, having an auxiliary table is most of the times the way to go. In my example, you could add incomes by years, group by them, etc.

I am also encountering this frustration. We have a larger Project Roadmap that we are building in Airtable.

Each row is equivalent to a request, so there are numerous fields associated with it. We have one field–iterations–that needs to be a multiple linked record since work can occur across multiple months.

If I then attempt to group by iterations, I get a display that doesn’t show the work under “May” and under “June”. Instead I get an additional grouping for “May June”. If this is only a View, there should be a way to handle this. Otherwise Multiple Linked Records combined with Grouping By is painful.

1 Like