Group using multiple select field, without creating a new group

Another problem with current functionality is Record 1 might have A,B and Record 2 might be B,A and Airtable will make two different groups for that. It would be nice to have some control over how Airtable handles groups for multi-select fields.

I strongly doubt that this will be implemented, and here’s why: each record in a database is a unique and independent entity, and therefore can only be in one place at a given time. This is a core database paradigm that’s not likely to change any time soon.

The analogy I like to give here is that a record is like a person. Say that you’re a member of two different clubs, and both clubs take an annual membership photo. It just so happens that both clubs are taking their respective photos on the same day, at the same time. Because of this, you have to choose which photo you want to appear in. You can’t clone yourself and be in both photos at once. You have to choose to be part of one photo, and absent from the other.

Database records are the same way. When choosing to group all records at once by a given field that has multiple options, Airtable has to decide where to place each record. While technically it could “clone” the record as needed for each group simply for display purposes, it doesn’t because that’s not an accurate representation of the data, and accurate data representation is hugely important in database software.

To use your example, there aren’t multiple copies of Record 3. There’s only one Record 3, so it can only appear in one group. To see the full lists of both Group A and Group B, you’ll have to create a separate view for each group. Their full membership can’t be viewed at the same time, just as you can’t be in two photos being taken at the exact same time.

Justin thanks for the insight.

The functionality would be very helpful for lots of applications. You are correct to define it more as a display than a “group” function, but I guarantee you most Airtable users want the group function specifically for the purpose of display. It makes it easy to see all related items to one tag.

Sounds like they would need to build some sort of grouped/stacked display of filters on one screen.

Would be amazing.

Any hint if this feature will be implemented?

I have this need for an Airtable I just created and impossible to group in a smart way for multiple select.

Does anyone else know if this is on the roadmap? This would be a hugely beneficial feature for me.

The Airtable dev team never discusses their roadmap. Some features go into public or private beta on occasion, which is the only part of the roadmap that most of us are likely to see. If it’s a public beta, you’ll see it in this forum. If it’s private, those involved can’t talk about it.

Does anyone know of any project management platform that allows you to do this? I’ll switch over to whichever one allows me to do this.

Justin, sorry to say this, but your answer pushes a technical complexity onto the user to work around. Airtable is all about user experience and solving technical challenges so the user doesn’t have to, but can focus on his addressing his business challenges.

Users don’t want to know about records and why in a grouped view the same record can’t appear twice. This is technical database bullsh*. The business problem we are trying to address is very real, so Airtable should solve the technicalities of it for us.

If an item X is assigned to multiple groups (say A+B or B+A, the order being irrelevant), from a business point of view I want item X to appear under all groups it is assigned to (under group A and under group . Whether the view shows an additional “combined” group (A+B) under which item X appears a third time, might be a group view config option.

This is an old thread… but had the same issue, will post solution in case of use to anyone else.

There are two concepts being mixed here, the idea of the relationships and the view. The view is just a representation, so by filtering you can create what you want.

1. create a new field “entry count” ~ type = count, choose the record (X) you want to group by


2. filter by count, where count = 1


3. group by (X) record

Now the groups with multiple page entries will be hidden

Would appreciate a hole lot Andrew if you would explain in other words your process here cause I unfortunatly don’t follow… are you talking here of a formula that goes like this? “entry count” ~ type = count… For me still a newbie in Airtable…

Thanks! Luc

Found this ‘‘count’’ field. Thing is it tells me this: ''You need a link field to create a count. Create the link field before configuring this count field.

And then when I click on Create field, it tells me this: ‘‘Sorry, there was a problem creating this field. The options are not valid.’’ … I don’t follow here.

@Luc_Poitras My gut says that @Andrew_Tennison is referring to a link field, not a multiple-select field. That’s the only use case where his suggestion works because count fields won’t work with multiple-select fields.

What he’s suggesting is to make a count field that counts linked records from a link field, add a filter to only show records where that count equals 1, then group by the link field.

I agree that this functionality would be very useful! I understand the technical challenge that Justin described, but since Airtable’s answer to reporting is the Group feature, I hope someone is working on a way to solve it!

That doesn’t feel like an accurate statement from my experience. While many users clearly want the group feature to be used for reporting, I don’t believe that Airtable ever intended for it to be used as such, which is why I don’t believe that it’s necessarily a problem that needs to be solved. My impression is that apps (formerly blocks) are where they see reporting happening, or possibly through solutions that tap into the Airtable data via the REST API.

That’s a completely different statement than “Airtable’s answer to reporting is the Group feature.” Yes, you can use grouped records to create reports, but that doesn’t imply that it’s designed to be the perfect reporting mechanism for all use cases.

I didn’t say it was. Take it easy, Justin.

Thank you Justin (Late response from me sorry) for your response on May 6.

FWIW we use Wrike for project management and it does precisely this. I can create a multiple select custom field with a set of choices and create a report that groups by those choices. I get a report with a group for each choice that displays the record in the group no matter what other choices are selected in the multiple select field. It’s perfect for when I have multiple resources or attributes on the same project and want to see the project reported under each resource or attribute.

There are a lot of other users asking similar questions. The response is frequently “use a linked table for the values.” While this is part of the solution, it doesn’t solve the core pain. It’s unintuitive to go to a different table to see a certain grouping, and it doesn’t afford the same editing experience. I understand that it “breaks database convention” by showing the same record multiple times in one table, but we’re already breaking convention by visualizing the data in groups. Data as visualized ≠ data as stored. This many people (see just a fraction listed below) asking for the feature is a sign that the feature is valuable.

For example, say I have a Roles table and a Teams table, a Role could be part of many Teams, and a Team is therefore composed of many Roles. If I want to see the Roles grouped by Team, I currently have to go to the Teams table to effectively view this. What I really want is to be in the Roles table and see a grouping by per Team, where the Role records is listed under each Team, and makes multiple appearances where applicable. IMO this should be the default; I’m struggling to think of a use case for the existing grouping behavior.

Just a few of the people asking for this:

• Split multiple values for Groupings


• Duplicating Records in Group View only


• Organizing records with multiple groups?


• Grouped by Multiple select should separate values not lump them together


• How to Group Multi-Select or Linked Record differently?


• Having One Row Show Up In Multiple Groups (Grouping Feature)


• Grouping by Multiple Select Field


• When group by a multiple select field, turn each value into a group

It’d be awesome if a community manager could merge some of the product suggestions to raise the vote count.

Following this thread as our team is also in need of this type of feature. We need to be able to easily have the data be grouped and have records display twice in some cases, to be able to export to a PDF for photo shoots. This would be a huge time saver for the team. Any updates on if this will be on a future roadmap? Thanks!

I also need this feature. Creating easy to make visual user interfaces is what sets Airtable apart from a program that is only a database, and easy grouping is a key part of that.

I posted another response to this but for some reason, it got flagged as spam but I would love to see this feature.

Secondly, Justin, your explanation above doesn’t foot. As I understand it, VIEWS are independent of data, so there is no need for multiple records if the View technology is designed to read the data, then create the view with pointers to the record. In other words, the view doesn’t present actual database records, just data read from the records.

This is a feature that isn’t new. I’ve attached a link to a video of how it works in a database application written in an OLD system (Lotus Notes). This was an extremely powerful feature with many advantages. I really hope Airtable takes a deeper look at this and figures out a way to deliver this capability.

In the context of the demo that you showed, you’re correct. However, as currently designed, Airtable views are dependent on the data, and they’ve been that way for a long time. While some long-time features do change on occasion, there’s no telling if this one will (mainly because Airtable is notoriously mute when it comes to talking about their development roadmap, with the upcoming Table Talk session where they plan on doing so being the only exception that comes to mind since I signed up). I’m not saying that it won’t ever change, but my gut says that it’s very unlikely.

Hi Justin, thanks for the reply. I didn’t mean to suggest that Views aren’t dependent on data - all views should be, it’s just that they are independent structures that reference and read data.

The reason I believe this capability is entirely “doable” within the current design of Airtable is because we can create copies of Views. These View copies do not duplicate the data, as changing a record in one View is reflected in any other View of that data. So each View is referencing a common data structure independently of others.

I hope this makes sense. As indicated by others on this thread, this is a feature that would be met with resounding acceptance…and in my case…“joy”.

Thanks.