# Has Many \[Sep 01\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Discord-Discussions\ **Created:** [November 3, 2022, 10:41am UTC](https://community.nocodb.com/t/has-many-sep-01/658 "2022-11-03T10:41:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![NocoDB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/6f9a4e/32.png) [@NocoDB](https://community.nocodb.com/u/NocoDB)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2022, 10:41am UTC](https://community.nocodb.com/t/has-many-sep-01/658/1 "2022-11-03T10:41:35Z")
> ๐Ÿ™‹โ€โ™‚๏ธ **Eric** _asked_ ## trying to setup a conventional one to many relationship between two tables, in the linkToAnotherRecord ui i see only `has Many` `Many To Many` options and nothing for `One to Many`. is there a different way I should define this type of relatinship? In the documentation is see that there is a foreign key value, but it doesnโ€™t seem to appear for my when i create fields. #### #### I saw there had been changes in the most recent versions, and updated to latest (0.92.4) and still donโ€™t see that datatype. #### #### #### this [github issue](https://github.com/nocodb/nocodb/issues/525#issue-993335776) seems to show the exact design flow, but in all recent tags of the source this datatype is commented out. ![image0](https://canada1.discourse-cdn.com/flex011/uploads/nocodb/original/1X/a7dbb69fc816d2b3523aec0a95aca38e574aebb0.png) ---
**Author:** ![NocoDB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/6f9a4e/32.png) [@NocoDB](https://community.nocodb.com/u/NocoDB)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2022, 10:41am UTC](https://community.nocodb.com/t/has-many-sep-01/658/2 "2022-11-03T10:41:36Z")
> ๐Ÿ’ **o1lab** _replied_ #### Has Many is One to Many # ---
**Author:** ![NocoDB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/6f9a4e/32.png) [@NocoDB](https://community.nocodb.com/u/NocoDB)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2022, 10:41am UTC](https://community.nocodb.com/t/has-many-sep-01/658/3 "2022-11-03T10:41:38Z")
> ๐Ÿ™‹โ€โ™‚๏ธ **Eric** _replied_ #### well conceptually, but it also bakes in exclusivity from the perspective of the parent. # ---
**Author:** ![NocoDB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/6f9a4e/32.png) [@NocoDB](https://community.nocodb.com/u/NocoDB)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2022, 10:41am UTC](https://community.nocodb.com/t/has-many-sep-01/658/4 "2022-11-03T10:41:39Z")
> ๐Ÿ™‹โ€โ™‚๏ธ **Eric** _replied_ #### e.g. if i define one to many in the current interface, if i assign a link value from the parent, it removes that from other peers. so not sure if itโ€™s just a bug/quirk in the current implementation. # ---
**Author:** ![NocoDB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/6f9a4e/32.png) [@NocoDB](https://community.nocodb.com/u/NocoDB)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2022, 10:41am UTC](https://community.nocodb.com/t/has-many-sep-01/658/5 "2022-11-03T10:41:40Z")
> ๐Ÿ™‹โ€โ™‚๏ธ **Eric** _replied_ #### e.g. [firefox\_6j1ayhc7Xf.mp4](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1011384718060695704/1011409681618575520/firefox_6j1ayhc7Xf.mp4) # ---
**Author:** ![NocoDB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/6f9a4e/32.png) [@NocoDB](https://community.nocodb.com/u/NocoDB)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2022, 10:41am UTC](https://community.nocodb.com/t/has-many-sep-01/658/6 "2022-11-03T10:41:41Z")
> ๐Ÿ™‹โ€โ™‚๏ธ **Russell** _replied_ #### A **Device** can have many **current\_cal** , but a **current\_cal** can only have one **Device**. In the **current\_cal** table there should be a column for **Devices\_id** which only holds an integer ID. So if you assign _โ€œthis is a yaml 1โ€_ to Device ID 2, it will no longer be assigned to Device ID 1. So it seems like itโ€™s working as expected, or do you want many-to-many, or did you want one-to-many in the opposite direction? # ---
**Author:** ![NocoDB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/6f9a4e/32.png) [@NocoDB](https://community.nocodb.com/u/NocoDB)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2022, 10:41am UTC](https://community.nocodb.com/t/has-many-sep-01/658/7 "2022-11-03T10:41:42Z")
> ๐Ÿ™‹โ€โ™‚๏ธ **Eric** _replied_ #### The desire is to have a conventional foreign key, in the context desribed here, yes running in the opposite directionโ€ฆ a foreign key from one table to another would not generally impart or enforce any exclusivity (across) the members of the parent table. # ---
**Author:** ![NocoDB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/6f9a4e/32.png) [@NocoDB](https://community.nocodb.com/u/NocoDB)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2022, 10:41am UTC](https://community.nocodb.com/t/has-many-sep-01/658/8 "2022-11-03T10:41:43Z")
> ๐Ÿ™‹โ€โ™‚๏ธ **Eric** _replied_ #### e.g. one should be able to (re) use the foreign keys values; many parent entities having the same foreign key value. # ---
**Author:** ![NocoDB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/6f9a4e/32.png) [@NocoDB](https://community.nocodb.com/u/NocoDB)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2022, 10:41am UTC](https://community.nocodb.com/t/has-many-sep-01/658/9 "2022-11-03T10:41:44Z")
> ๐Ÿ™‹โ€โ™‚๏ธ **Eric** _replied_ #### from looking at the docs it appeared that this exists, but maybe rolled into the linked # ---
**Author:** ![NocoDB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/6f9a4e/32.png) [@NocoDB](https://community.nocodb.com/u/NocoDB)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2022, 10:41am UTC](https://community.nocodb.com/t/has-many-sep-01/658/10 "2022-11-03T10:41:46Z")
> ๐Ÿ™‹โ€โ™‚๏ธ **Eric** _replied_ #### \<@531097245194387457\> it looks like we have the same question/need. # ---
**Author:** ![NocoDB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/6f9a4e/32.png) [@NocoDB](https://community.nocodb.com/u/NocoDB)\ **Post date:** [November 3, 2022, 10:41am UTC](https://community.nocodb.com/t/has-many-sep-01/658/11 "2022-11-03T10:41:47Z")
[Autogenerated from discord](https://discord.com/channels/661905455894888490/1011384718060695704) * * * #### Join [NocoDBโ€™s](http://www.nocodb.com/) community [Discord](https://discord.gg/5RgZmkW) โ€ข [Twitter](https://twitter.com/nocodb) โ€ข [Reddit](https://www.reddit.com/r/NocoDB/) โ€ข [Docs](https://docs.nocodb.com/)