Link to other base


This is a possible solution that others have hinted at. If there could be a way to allow for a table to be duplicated to another database and that when changes to the source database are made that are also made in batch or on the fly to all the duplicate databases tables that would make a bunch of things possible.

Plus if you could select the fields that you want copied/duplicated that would even be better.

Because then the source table can be protected in the source database. The duplicate table data would be a special read only for all in the new database. This can then be used to lookup information, updated records, link tables without the many problems. If the source is removed or changed in a way that make the link stop the duplicate could remain static but report an error. Changes would not be allowed the other way.

You could do this by batch loading the table over and over but I think that would mess up the links.

If anyone know of way of doing this now please let me know.


Would be great to at least have a table search to use if adding a dozen+ tables to a base as a workaround, and way to hide most of the tables so its not taking up multiple rows at top of screen.


Hey, just checking in on this feature as it’s been 1 year since you confirmed that linking between bases was on the implement list. Do we have any news on how far away this is yet? :slight_smile:


This feature would be really helpful. Any potential dates for when it is coming?


+1 - Thanks for the great tool!

We’re managing orders and customers in a single base, and it would sure be helpful to break them apart…then the customer base could become customer/marketing for specific campaigns and the orders base could be broken down even further without having so many total records in a single base.

Excited for this one!


Wow - so many messages & people asking for interlinking of bases to keep their data nicely separated and ordered, yet no action from Airtable. Also, it would be really helpful to have finer permissions, like being able to protect some columns from certain user groups.


In order to do this viably, they would need to completely overhaul their pricing model, since all of the tier limitations are “per Base” - that’s probably the biggest barrier preventing this from happening.


For sure another +1 here for all the above reasons.

As for the pricing model issue, I hear what you’re saying, but the effort of designing a new payment schema (and the possibility of alienating some users) seems tiny compared to the massive increase in design possibilities that come with base-to-base linking.

I’m keeping my fingers crossed for this one.


+1 !!! this is a must request


I can see how this would be very useful - I can also see how it may be very difficult for Airtable to achieve (depending upon how the system is structured).

The same end could be served by having the ability to hide parts of the base depending upon users (actually Groups would be better) - and only display the whole base to it’s designer / admin. In this way it would be workable to build much larger solutions in Airtable with everything in one base. (And in this way it would make the current pricing model work better for Airtable as well).


I must see something different than you. Every one of the packages on the pricing page say “Unlimited Bases”.


Just to jump on the bandwagon… I have a base simply called “data” that tracks our customers, contacts, endpoints, etc. I would like to have another base for “Tasks” and be able to reference all the tables in the other base. I could create a Tasks table in the main base, but I don’t necessarily want to expose all that to other users, plus it’s really started to get busy. Logically, they just seem like they should be separate.


Hi @Airtable team. Adding some more background from a new user.

The main reason I want to be able to use linking between bases is so that I can use a single member / user database across multiple bases.

One of our use cases is for Airtable to manage internal tasks and priorities. There is a single employee list that is used across a wide range of bases: task lists, roles and responsibilities, training processes, editorial calendars, etc. It’s not practical for all this to live in one base but neither is it practical to create multiple lists of employees and try to keep these all in sync. Granular permissions would be nice also, but wouldn’t solve our particular need.

Hope this helps :slight_smile:


… just to chime in: I see that something like this looks obvious and straightforward, but opens a can of worms around permissions, access rights, and no end of other questions.

However, I would say that this is a +1 feature I would love to see.


I ASSUMED this would already be a feature. Now I’ve got several disparate Bases and no way for them to talk to each other. :cry:



Another user who would gain a lot of benefit from this feature.


My use cases end up being mostly #3 (cramped with too many tables) and some of #2.
Some information I use is needed in almost all of my bases; I use a ‘art studies’ checklist sort of base, and it bleeds into many of my projects but isn’t related enough to list every time.
Aside from that, for most of my issues, this might be resolved just by being able to group or tag tables together.

As for permissions…
I see a need for a ‘can see’ and ‘can edit’, maybe ‘can comment’, ‘can add’ permissions for different bases, maybe for different tables or views. I can see ‘comments’ being a common base for that purpose, for that matter. I don’t see it as useful if those permissions aren’t held across linked bases and records.


I utilize Airtable to organize records for a small college. I agree that linking between table would be awesome. for the reasons stated above. However, for me, I could keep all of the information in a single base with some exceptions. Perhaps the exceptions can be remedied with current solutions. If so I apologize, if not, please consider…

  1. If I could password protect a table while still sharing selected data fields with other tables that would address my need to exclude certain data while using other bits.

  2. If #1 were possible the number of table “tabs” would make navigation between tables cumbersome. Perhaps the ability to link table names to a single table. That way I could create a “table of contents” for tables that are in a base. a TOC would contain the names of all of the other tables, sort and filter capabilities of course, so no matter how many tables I would have in a base I can find the specific tables I need without searching through the ever changing list…

I am new to AT but I must tell you it is an excellent product. If any of these capabilities are available and I just have not found them yet please disregard my note AFTER sending instructions on how to make it work.

Thank you for your efforts.


We are new to Airtable. We are a small business, currently using Smartsheet, and while it does work well, it has no relational data feature, so I was looking for a relational DB in the cloud. Airtable looks great and could easily replace Smartsheets, but to be worth the effort, we need the link to other base feature.
As very well analysed by @Katherine_Duh Katherine_Duh, feature 1 is permissions: tables requiring more confidentiality or safety would be in a base with very limited access.
Then 2: complex cross-base reporting
and 3 is correct, a base with too many tables becomes harder to use,

As a temporary step, making shared views permissions more granular would help a lot:
any view would be shareable for either view, edit, add, delete, edit view definition (or combinations)


YES!!! This is the single most wanted feature for me.