Thanks Matt Wilkie and Jamal NUMAN. I totally get it, what you both (and others on this thread) say makes sense about putting something like this out to the community. From an "actionability" standpoint, a thread like this is a good signal that there is work to be done on performance in Pro. But without specific steps and comparisons, dev teams may not know there is an issue specific for their team to address.
Matt, to get at your question of what to include when working with support, system information is a great start. An easy way to get that is to run 'Check your computer's ability to run ArcGIS Pro 2.4' from ArcGIS Pro 2.4 system requirements—ArcGIS Pro | Documentation Take a screenshot of the results and save for later. This is a quick and easy way to rule out anything obvious.
For performance issues, users are often comparing something to something else - in this case, Pro is slower than ArcMap. OK, not for everything, so for what? Make a note of the data type (file gdb, shapefile, enterprise gdb (what rdbms and version?; using versioning (branch, traditional?), etc.), where the data is stored - local, network share, where are the servers, and some details about the data - is it 5 polygons or is it 500,000 points that participate in relationship classes, or topology, or... I understand that when comparing ArcGIS Pro to ArcMap, these are constants. It is the same data, in the same location, and ArcMap is faster than Pro. Perfect, but what often is missing are steps and times. Once we have that, now there is something that is more actionable.
So after laying out system specs, and details about the data, a performance case would look something like:
ArcMap
1.
2.
3.
Completes in 3 seconds.
ArcGIS Pro
1.
2.
3.
Completes in 15 seconds.
Detailing the above will usually help us understand which team is best equipped to analyze the issue.
Thank you.
