![]() ![]() Then I changed it to ‘merge removing duplicates’ and discovered another problem because similar file in two different fields has different links, and defininition “same name=duplicate” is of course wrong. (tl dr: “it’s still unpredictale and unclear for me”)įew mothns ago i did automation script to merge attachments from branch to main and hit ‘duplicates issue’(when you merge main’1,2’ with branch’3,4’, you receive ‘1,2,3,4’, but after branch update record(4=>5) it will merge 3,5 to 1-4, and 3 became duplicate. ![]() I’ll report back once I see the final results from my test. Maybe it’s a similar 10- to 15-minute refresh frequency like so many other things. I want to see how that indicator changes when I delete the test record (and its attachment) along with record revision history, and I hope that I don’t have to wait a full day for that figure to refresh.Įdit: it just updated. The base where I’m running the test shows 6.9MB of attachments, but that only accounts for the existing attachments before the 112MB file that I just added. Does it affect the quota when record revision history is deleted? I’m running a test now to see for myself, but the stats on my workspace settings page aren’t refreshing as promptly as I’d hoped (and I’ve reloaded the page multiple times). I’ve not delved into the guts of revision history yet, but this discussion has piqued my interest, partly because I’m trying to help a client who has hit an attachment limit. Airtable has not published now long old, deleted attachments remain, but a reasonable guess is at least one year (the length of revision history) without manual intervention by support. One thing to keep in mind, if your users are entering in data via an Interface, then they can easily search for existing IDs through the Interface "Record Review" page that lists out all records.Old deleted attachments are not automatically deleted by Airtable and continue to count towards your base’s quota. I too am keen if anyone has any outside-the-box kind of ideas on how to solve this. Knowing that I more-or-less face the same issue that you're talking about, in that, how do we let the users known that the number they've entered before creating a record has already been taken - my immediate solution is to simply take that option away from the user and let the database take care of all new records and automatically generate a non-duplicate ID (no doubt sequential). Worryingly too, if a user creates a massive unreasonable ID number, that is accepted into the system, this then would confuse the auto-ID number generator as it would then start to create massive numbers for future records. ![]() However, I did leave one manual method of record creation, which allows the manual entry of an ID number - but it is the users responsibility to make sure they're picking a non-existing number, which as I type this out now, leaves me a little unsettled knowing that they too may not check if their nominated number already exists. The user simply don't have a say in which ID is issued next. The way I solved this similar problem for my users, was to have Airtable issue the default ID of ALL newly created records - which covers 99% of new record creations. (obviously the same check cannot be done in the table where the data is sorted because it will find the record that has been added a few moment ago and cannot distinguish between the record you just created and the other ones, so the comparation won't work and will always find an existing record with the same ID) It bothers me that i haveto create a new table just to do this as my workspace is becoming increasingly dirty with tables needed only to run automation and set variables but it seems work fine for now. I trigger the automation everytime a new record is created in Table A, the automation finds every Record in Table B and with conidionals it checks if the unique field is already in Table B, if it is not it adds the new record, if it is it sends the warning email and checks a checkbox. I created a Check duplicates table (Table B) where the only thing i do is linking every single record from the table i want to check (Table A). ![]() I think i found a workaround through automations and a new table: ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |