You stumbled across way more than you think you did. If I'm not mistaken, can't this be used to bypass the aggregator all together thus saving a ton of water operations in make? Or am I wrong..
Hi @norman - Thank you for your comment. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you can connect the 2 airtable nodes together without the aggregator and get the same result? If that is what you are saying that is incorrect. You will need some form of aggregator (text + split as in the video or array + map) because the initial Airtable node produces individual bundles that need to be aggregated somehow to produce the results. Where you are correct is that this will result in a significant saving of Make operations.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 85 | คู่เอก "ยอดเหล็กเพชร vs ผึ้งหลวง"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Qq_19bnnxEo/mqdefault.jpg)
![[LIVE] นาทีนี้ต้องพี่ทนาย | ทนายแก้ว vs ทนายไพศาล | #คุยให้เด็กมันฟัง EP.47 (02/11/67)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HmquaO-PL_M/mqdefault.jpg)
Oh wow!!! Really appreciate ❤
You stumbled across way more than you think you did. If I'm not mistaken, can't this be used to bypass the aggregator all together thus saving a ton of water operations in make? Or am I wrong..
Hi @norman - Thank you for your comment. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that you can connect the 2 airtable nodes together without the aggregator and get the same result?
If that is what you are saying that is incorrect. You will need some form of aggregator (text + split as in the video or array + map) because the initial Airtable node produces individual bundles that need to be aggregated somehow to produce the results.
Where you are correct is that this will result in a significant saving of Make operations.