# Relationship properties **URL:** \ **Category:** Ideas & Features\ **Tags:** flexible-domain\ **Created:** [August 7, 2020, 8:26pm UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/relationship-properties/887 "2020-08-07T20:26:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 6
**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:** [September 23, 2020, 5:44pm UTC](https://community.fibery.io/t/relationship-properties/887/6 "2020-09-23T17:44:19Z")
…and while browsing these forums, I came across this: > [@Relation with property (junction table)](https://community.fibery.io/t/relation-with-property-junction-table/693): > > Case: relation without properties Types: Recipe and Product. Relation: there is a product in many recipes and one recipe contains many products (many-to-many) Solution: two tables Case: relation with property Types: Recipe, Product and ProductRecipe Relation: there is a product in the recipe with a certain gram and vice-versa Solution: three tables In result of second solution i have this table: Table of ProductRecipes And it’s not convenient cau… I think there is a genuine need here, but maybe a lot of use cases can be solved with a few basic properties (text, number, single-/multi-select, date, checkbox) without needing all the more sophisticated fields types that an entity supports (relations, formulas, extensions, etc.) That would definitely keep me happy! I know michael said, > [@Relation with property (junction table)](https://community.fibery.io/t/relation-with-property-junction-table/693/2): > > We do have this in mind, but not sure when we’ll get to it. so I’m keeping my fingers crossed 🙂 --- _[View the full topic](https://community.fibery.io/t/relationship-properties/887)._