Records" limit appears to be too small

[Javier_Bonet]

I plan to make a database of transactions between users.
In that case I can easily reach 1.200 rows, this means only 35 users making 35 tx between each other… this is nothing.
Even 50k is too limited: only 200 users 200 transactions each.
Am I understanding correctly the “Records” limit?
Thanks.

Javier Bonet

[ScottWorld]

The enterprise plan allows you to have more than 50,000 records per base.

[kuovonne · Accepted solution]

Yes, you are understanding the records limit correctly.

Your math is a little off (200 users could each create 250 records before hitting the 50,000 record limit), but you get the idea.

Some people get around this limitation with an enterprise subscription. Others get around it by using multiple bases. Others determine that they need a different platform.

[Javier_Bonet]

:laughing: unfortunately I am a single guy creating my first app :blush:
But thanks

[ScottWorld]

I thought you said you had 200 users? But in any case, yeah, unfortunately, if you need more than 50,000 records per base, then your only 2 options are enterprise plan or a different platform.

[Bill_French]

Javier_Bonet:

I plan to make a database of transactions between users.

Imagine an architecture where transaction detail between users is embodied as text-based transaction objects in a long text field. You could store a list in a specific format that’s easily parsed, or as a JSON object as a collection of structured records. I’ve used this approach to create some very powerful one-to-many aggregations without ever using a single other record.

In my tests and in production, a single long text field can store far more than 200 lines of dense content, and likely more. This requires some careful programming using the script block or API but it would make it possible for 50,000 Airtable records to contain many hundreds of times that in detail transaction items.