Link to other base


+1 from me.

Relatable bases, to summarise content from a master/complete/project base into a specific collaborators base showing assigned tasks (distilling collaborators tasks from many individual bases to a singular base) is a must for our business.

Use case: each base is a construction call forward sheet containing every task to complete a project (500 plus tasks). Tasks are assigned to multiple collaborators/companies or to company employees.

The database owner and some of its users need to see the complete base for each project, all task view, to assign, comment and adjust tasks, keep the singular base/project updated. Other employees only need see task assigned to them or their division (sales/admin/contracts/estimating/scheduling/site). Sharing filtered or grouped views could achieve the filtering of internal company information/viewing by internal company collaborators.

A collaborator has tasks on multiple bases/jobs, but does not need to see all the tasks in an individual base ) they get lost/confused/just don’t need to see everything.

Consequently, linking each base/project to an individual collaborator’s “summary base” that shows only those tasks they have been assigned from each “complete base” is essential in our workflow.

This way, each collaborator is provided a link/access to one “summary” base, that they can share to all of their employees, seeing, commenting and completing only those tasks assigned to them from multiple “complete/project” bases.

A many to one and one to many type database relationship.

Sort of like what we could do with MS Access SQL databases (when MS Access was all we had) :slight_smile:


Yes, this will improve the way we use Airtable and make even more versatile.

[And I have not read all the threads]

My suggestion is to make one base in a team the master/global base, with global bases that could be linked into other bases. In the specific project base one could link to e.i the master ‘employee’ base. This lives in the master bases and just appears in the other bases for linking records purposes.

Keep up the good work @Katherine_Duh et. al.!


I too see this feature as highly desirable as I often end up duplicating tables and data in different bases as I want yet other tables to be seperate.

To simplify this process would it be possible to set up a global base with only tables that would be shared by all bases.

Or in the intrim, give the ability to copy the structure of a table to another base. This would make the process a little easier.


Oh gawd, wether it’s this or shared views that allow sharees to edit would save me a TON of Zaps and work way better.


Since this is the number one feature I’d benefit from, I thought I’d add my use case for it.

As a professional musician I have two distinct areas of focus. Each have their own bases which I use to record my activities and use as CRMs.

These two focus areas are so distinc that they definitely have their own types of info, and benefit from being separate bases. But since essentially these activists all go through myself and are both in the music industry, there is some crossover, especially on the CRM side.

Two examples of this:

  1. I have records of session musicians I meet, and artists in similar styles, as well as artists I play on the same program with. Occasionally these cross focus areas, and I end up with a record in each CRM for that. Then, I can no longer see all records pertaining to that artist/venue/etc.
  2. In each CRM I have a locations table. This lets me see all venues, artists, media, media coverage, etc in a given city. Both CRMs have this though, and it’d be nice to have the same city records in each base. It’d also be nice to see all referencing records in both bases.

Thanks for all the amazing work you do on Airtable! No app has really changed my workflows so dramatically and as quickly. :blue_heart::blue_heart::blue_heart:


Adding my voice to the chorus—this would be hugely helpful as a way to organize HR and employee record data, without having to worry about granular permissions.

Or, if easier, you could add granular view/write/modify permissions on a table-by-table basis, and not worry about linking bases. Either one solves our problems and would be very helpful!!


+1million for this request. Actually, I’d settle for either a) ghost copies of tables in other databases or b) a Zapier trigger for updates to records instead of new. Not being able to link and only having a new record trigger makes things very hard and much more manual than it should be.

Simple permissioning won’t solve the problem either, as we really need to have certain data ghost between databases. For example, personal information needs to be available to HR as well as to Sales, and people shouldn’t have to move back and forth between bases to grab a simple mailing address. And, every time a mailing address gets updated in a personal information base, I shouldn’t have to manually update it in the sales database.

Is there an update to this feature? I have read the thread and it shows that it’s been ongoing for about 18 months now. Thank you!

PS - Love Airtable so far and this is my only huge complaint about what is otherwise an amazing product.


Like many others here I have the same problem and until it is sorted out I am reluctant to persevere with rolling our Airtable further. If I were to combine all of my tables it would be so very unwieldy that it would cause a problem as it can be a bit laggy when I have a poor wifi connection. Some of the parts of my business are discrete sharing only marginal data with other parts but in and of themselves they are quite complicated and data rich.

It is such a shame, I really need the feature but I can see that we are all sitting here waiting for it to happen. I’m surprised that it hasn’t been responded to by Airtable directly, or did I miss that in earlier posts on this subject, given the number of people who have felt strongly enough to post here.

I look forward to seeing it sometime in the future. The near future. Maybe?


YES, this would be amazing.


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:

  1. 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 $$$.

  2. 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.:thinking:

  3. 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.


As a person who freelances in both sound and web development, it would be incredibly useful to me if I could keep gigs/info in separate bases, with a third centralized to show gross totals, calendar availability, etc. It’s possible that this is outside the scope of Airtable, but I would like to keep using this software!!
My issue with keeping it all in one base is that it’s crowded and unwieldy, and will just get more and more so with every additional project.


I’m a little surprised that this isn’t implemented yet. Is this on the roadmap for the devs?


I’ve used the second option in multiple cases.

Until there’s a native solution it works fine. :slight_smile:


Is the second option, duplicating a base, just taking a snapshot though and the data is out of date as soon as the original base is worked on? Or have I missed something?

I’d like to be able to link to a source base as part of a redaction workflow to update my Airtable Universe base on demand. Anybody have a semi- or fully automated way to repeat the redaction process?


You’re right. I’ve automated replication for AT clients.

Drop me a PM in case you’re interested. :slight_smile:




But you can’t have used option 2. Well not as I meant it as I was proposing a native solution / feature. It involves the duplicated base not replicating data. Rather it would be an instance of that base or view of that same base.

Can you explain your use cases? Cheers


It is a web service that (among other things) replicates data. I’ve been using it for clients in multiple scenarios. Like:

  • Moving historical data to a safe read-only base (1-way)
  • Communication between a centralized base and individual sales rep bases (2-way)
  • Communication between a centralized base and project bases (2-way)

The first scenario makes sure no one accidentally changes e.g. invoice data. The second option is primarily for data separation per-user. The last one enables different user groups and data separation per-project.

The 2-way communication ranges from updating simple things (leads, appointments, sales, notes, etc.) back and forth to complete project management (possibility to create new products in every base with centralized validation, inventory, purchase orders, etc.).

Does this help? :slight_smile:

Best, Arthur.


Yes thanks, good to know


+1 for being able to link tables in different bases!


Dear Airtable Team,
can you tell if this feature is generally planed as a future feature for Airtable? This would be very useful for us Handeling write and view Permissions to our bases and we need to you know if we can expect that in the future.