+1. This seems like one of those low effort/high delight features. Seems like an easy win for the product team. Let’s keep this thread fresh!
+1 for me as well! I’ve had multiple use cases where this comes up. Thanks!
I know I posted in this topic before, but I keep running into this annoying problem. Structuring my research database would be so much easier if it wasn’t for this issue. Why would you ever want to have duplicates in a lookup field?
I agree that the Airtable engineers dropped the ball with this one, and sadly, they seem to be unresponsive to user feedback like the comments in this thread.
There is one partial workaround to this dilemma, but it doesn’t provide the full functionality of lookup fields (which have now become clickable items in Airtable):
Would be great to have this feature.
Adam from the Airtable customer support team here. I had an Airtable user reach out with a link to this community post. While I can’t speak to a specific timeframe for when this feature might be available I have a workaround that may help.
I used the Recipe, Ingredients, and food type example from earlier in the thread. Also, you will need to have some comfort with our Automations feature in order to use this method:
Hope this helps and know that our team is very thankful to our community!
P.S. It may make more sense to set up the automation trigger to be “When a record is updated” and have it just watch the “Array Unique” rollup field.
Although it doesn’t resolve the underlying issue, I found this to be very useful.
Thanks for posting!
It IS a workaround, but it’s not very scalable, as creating 3 additional fields and an automation for what is essentially a field-level filter is not a particularly elegant solution. And then good luck trying to explain that workflow to a non-experienced user. The simplest solution is to not make users think or create a Rube Goldberg machine to do something that really should be a no-brainer.
And this also goes for linked records on the same table. Please give us a simple switch to allow the linkage to apply to both records. For example, if I have a Software table and have a same-table linked record field called Integrations, if I use this field to link Airtable to Zapier, I’d want an option (at the field-level) to make this a two-way linkage so that Zapier is also linked to Airtable in this instance.
+1 really need this feature…
Here to join the party, I’ve also just come across this need. Trying to organise references and research for individual animal species, but view easily overall content within their families.
Having this feature would be the final puzzle piece.
+1 to this feature too.
+1 to the above, this is a sorely needed filter
+100000 to the above… been waiting for this for a loooong while.
+1 to this feature too.
+1 to this feature - very much needed.
+1 this would solve a lot of issues and prevent the need to use hacky workarounds that aren’t scalable
Adding my +1. This feature prevents our organization from really using this as it would be integral to a lot of the tables we would need to create. The current workaround is not feasible at scale.
+1 from me too.
This would really help us.
+1 I’m currently evaluating AirTable and this was an immediately noticeable issue. Seeing how old this thread is, how much activity etc, as well as in other threads of “why-is-this-not-standard?” feature requests, I’m beginning to seriously doubt this product.
+1 for this feature.