teable icon indicating copy to clipboard operation
teable copied to clipboard

Unable to display system fields __created_time and __last_modified_time in views

Open qx54 opened this issue 2 months ago • 4 comments

Summary

By default, Teable creates two system fields in each table: __created_time and __last_modified_time. These fields are essential for many use cases, but currently, there seems to be no way to display them in any view (e.g., Grid view).

Problem

These system fields are automatically hidden and cannot be unhidden or displayed in views. As a result, users who need to see or use this data are forced to create duplicate fields that replicate the same information - leading to redundancy and potential confusion.

Expected Behavior

There should be an option to unhide or display these fields in views (ideally as read-only columns).

Actual Behavior

The system fields __created_time and __last_modified_time remain hidden, with no available configuration or UI option to show them.

Question

Is there currently any way to make these fields visible, or is this a missing feature that could be added?

qx54 avatar Oct 30 '25 17:10 qx54

Same for the fields __id and __autonumber.

It would be nice to be able to unhide them and use them e.g. for linking records.

qx54 avatar Oct 31 '25 10:10 qx54

You can add a new field , and in field type you can select "Created Time" or "Last Modified Time".

solankimihir avatar Nov 04 '25 04:11 solankimihir

It would be nice to be able to unhide them and use them e.g. for linking records.

You can create a column with Field Type "Auto Number"

solankimihir avatar Nov 04 '25 04:11 solankimihir

You can add a new field , and in field type you can select "Created Time" or "Last Modified Time".

Thanks! Yes, I’m aware of that option. That’s actually what I was referring to in the issue description:

“As a result, users who need to see or use this data are forced to create duplicate fields that replicate the same information - leading to redundancy and potential confusion.”

The point is that while this workaround exists, it introduces unnecessary duplication and effort rather than solving the underlying problem.

qx54 avatar Nov 04 '25 15:11 qx54