# Basic Relation between the same Type **URL:** \ **Category:** Ideas & Features\ **Created:** [April 27, 2020, 6:55am UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/basic-relation-between-the-same-type/658 "2020-04-27T06:55:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 12
**Author:** ![Chr1sG](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex020/user_avatar/community.fibery.io/chr1sg/32/3941_2.png) [@Chr1sG](https://community.fibery.io/u/Chr1sG)\ **Post date:** [November 6, 2020, 7:18pm UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/basic-relation-between-the-same-type/658/12 "2020-11-06T19:18:46Z")
Good point @colman although I have to say that if the need is for a ‘peer-to-peer’ relationship (with only a single field showing) then I wonder what the meaning of the grouping would be and whether it might be served by another solution. See my comments here: > [@Loopback Relation - hide second list?](https://community.fibery.io/t/loopback-relation-hide-second-list/1118/4): > > I suppose that there are times when it’s useful to have a ‘peer’ relationship (i.e. not directional) allowing for entities of the same type can be put in a group together. In this case, only one field is needed. But I think the next question might be, “What is the meaning of the grouping?” and if it is because different groups of entities have different characteristics, then perhaps this ought to be solved using either: single- or multi-select fields (a.k.a ‘tags’) many-to-one or many-to-many… If the issue of [showing more info for children](https://community.fibery.io/t/done-display-more-information-fields-in-collection-view/45) is solved, then peer-to-peer can be achieved with the addition of a relation (many-to-one) to a ‘group’ type. For the time being, you can link items to a group and then add a (read-only) lookup to show other peers in the same group. --- _[View the full topic](https://community.fibery.io/t/basic-relation-between-the-same-type/658)._