Can you have multiple "type: reference" entries in an array in Sanity.io?

Is it possible to have a

type: array

, of more than one entry for

type: reference

? I kept getting an error that pointed to https://www.sanity.io/help/schema-array-of-invalid when I tried to make multiple

{type: 'reference', to: [a single type]}

. I tried uniquely `name`ing them on both the

to

values, and the reference type itself, but it's hung up on the fact I have dozens of

reference

types in the

type: 'array'

.
Currently reverted back to just a single

type: 'reference'

with a lot of

to

values, but it's problematic because of the many types I have, many of them have hundreds of results, making it very difficult for me to say I want "this document" from "this type"
The generated groq from that on dash is quite huge too since it has to match on a ton of fields on each type
😐

Do you have it set up like this?

thats what i currently have it set up as, but I would like to have multiple

type: 'reference'

inside it so I can have more targeted search by types

Or some means of being able to select what type that was given to it in the reference link dialog. Right now the choice is search all the `to`s, which is like dumping the entire dataset every search

You can’t have multiple ones like you describe unfortunately, but would it help with a filter? https://www.sanity.io/docs/reference-type#filter-ebd7a95f9dc6

Right now the choice is search all the `to`s, which is like dumping the entire dataset every search

This shouldn't be a concern, it's basically the same as any query to the dataset, but I get why the user experience might not be the best if you don't what to search for.
The solution here is to add

name

 to the array fields so that the studio knows how to differ between them.

This will change the array items` 

_type

 from

reference

 to

referenceA

and

referenceB

Wish it didn't change the _type (current auto-dereferencing code I wrote doesn't understand that) but I guess I can match on _type

^reference(_\w*)?

and pray everyone follows convention.

You can look for the

_ref

key?

That’s the best guarantee. I see your point though!

Probably, but is that _ref key protected like _type is (as in, I can't make a field

name: '__ref')

? (you're drunk slack, get some coffee)

Good to know though. A coworker recently fell into that

name

trap and neither of us could figure out what was going on (outside of "name seems to be dangerous, dont use it)". Now I can explain it lol

I don’t think it’s protected like that, but I have never observe anyone use it outside of the reference context. We should probably throw a warning if you do add field names that corresponds with those we use for specific things