Possible to combine two Linked columns without CONCAT?

[Spencer_Allen]

Kind of a small ask, but is it possible to combine two linked columns into a formula column without converting them into text or having to convert them back (I’d imagine that’s a crazy inefficient process to have running)

I have two fields from separate tables that serve a similar but separate function, but I’d prefer to limit the number of columns in my view.

[Shaun_Hornsby]

Create another column with a formula. Inside that formula just add the columns. example would be {column 1}+{column 2}, then hide column 1 and column 2.

I just did this with a project i am working on where i have about 15 tables liked to 1 table for sales. Each location would have its own table but when i link them to the primary table, they all have their own row in that table. Using the above method is how i was able to get the total sales to show all in one column instead of having to look through 15 different columns to see all of the info.

[Spencer_Allen]

Thanks for the response! I should clarify, I’m looking to combine non-numeric columns.

The idea in this case is that I have a table of notes and a table where each record tracks an interview process from submission to completion via Kanban. Each show up in a linked columns for contacts, but they’re both similar enough records that it’d make sense for them to only show up in one column i possible.

[Shaun_Hornsby]

I just assumed when you said “without converting them into text” that you was dealing with numerical data. Is there a reason why you are not wanting to use Concatenate? I think thats honestly going to be your best option to use Concatenate to combine the two then hide those two source columns that are linked. I am using that to combine Part Numbers and Description in one base with a dash between the two and it works great.

concatenate({column1}, " - ", {column2}) is how i use this.

The only other way i may have another option is if i was able to take a look at what you are working with. If you to share it with me id be happy to take a look to see if i can come up with any other ideas.

[W_Vann_Hall]

I wouldn’t worry about the processing hit for something as simple as combining values from two columns into a third. (In my deduplication routines, there’s a process that essentially creates a rollup field containing a calculated value from every record in a table and then recalculates several fields in every record in the table. Up to about 5,000 records, there’s almost no noticeable lag time; by 7 or 8,000, it’s noticeable; by 12,000, it starts taking longer than one would prefer; it doesn’t truly become annoying until 20,000 or so records. YMMV.) Combining multiple fields to minimize the vertical footprint of a record is pretty much SOP in working with kan ban views…