Select to view content in your preferred language

Order of layers in a feature service

08-28-2023 06:29 AM
Occasional Contributor

I created a feature service with 100 layers. I spent a lot of time organising the order in which they are stacked in ArcGIS Pro. After publishing the order appears alright in the overview of feature service. It exactly matches the layers in ArcGIS Pro map, from where it was published. But when I add this FS to a map, the order is completely awry. Even polygon layers go on top of lines and points. See below pic: 

Incorrect layer order in WebmapIncorrect layer order in Webmap

Any idea why this happens?


0 Kudos
3 Replies
MVP Esteemed Contributor

When you pull it into the map, you're using the actual FeatureService endpoint, not the MapService one, correct?

Honestly, it looks like it's alphabetizing them. But once a feature service is in your map, the order of the layers can be altered. I know it would be tedious to rearrange them again in the map, but you could.

If you add the Feature Service to Pro, does it honor the layer order? If so, you could add it to Pro, then save the web map from there.

- Josh Carlson
Kendall County GIS
Regular Contributor

Yes I noticed the alphabetical order too.

I would like to suggest 100 layers may not be a good idea for a single feature service.  You should split these layers into several services and it may improve the management of the data and performance of the services.

With 100 layers in one service all of the draw requests must go to the same service / ArcSOC.exe.  You may have several instances of the service (several ArcSOC.exe) configured for the service but I expect you will get better performance if those layers are spread across several services.

On our servers the service with the most layers has 16 layers and one table.  Its a map service and it is configured with a max of 9 instances spread across 3 servers.


Esri Regular Contributor

Agree on the "too many layers" point. those should be split into different services with themes. Nobody's going to view all 100 of those layers at a time. I believe that this may be the answer to your question though: