Maximum Record Limit

[Guido_Hoffmann]

I was hoping I could leverage the new Sync capability to get around the maximum record limit for a base ( 50 000 for me) but it looks like you designed sync in a way so that this is not possible.

My problem is that my company has a huge list of customers/contacts that I would like to leverage within multiple bases in airtable but because of its size that is impractical right now. Do you see any way around this problem?

[ScottWorld]

Airtable offers the enterprise plan for people who need more than 50,000 records. I’m not sure what the limit is with that plan, but perhaps others do.

[RnJ]

Enterprise goes to 100k records, but starts at $3k per month. I agree, would be nice to buy additional space if needed. I am in no way enterprise or can afford the cost but would gladly pay more if can keep all my records in one base. I think it has more to do with base performance though.

[Guido_Hoffmann]

Exactly, that’s the boat I’m in. I was hoping that through sync there would be a way to support a large number of records in a read-only way without impacting performance.

[ScottWorld]

You bring up a good point that it might be a matter of performance as opposed to number of records. It would be nice to be able to pay for more storage space, but the enterprise level plan is probably on an entirely different tier of AWS servers.

[Tuur]

Not sure if it’s an option, but in case you only need subsets: filtered views reduce the number of records for destination bases.