Is ArcPro just generally slower than ArcMap?

[RandyMcGregor_BMcD]

We are finding that ArcPro is - across the board - way slower than ArcMap. Easily 10 times slower on average, and many continue to use ArcMap for this reason, despite its pending deprecation. Calculations, selections, symbology changes, rudimentary geoprocessing, and even selecting records all come with lags that slow down the entire workflow substantially.

I see this icon multiple times a day, often for dozens of seconds, or into minutes, even for simple tasks:

Is this a general fact of ArcPro, or does this indicate a need to makes changes to our infrastructure?

Is it a reasonable expectation that ArcPro is - on average - comparable to ArcMap in general speed?

I realize this is kind of wide open.  Not expecting anyone to fix this. Just trying to get a feel for what our expectations should be and how to respond to this situation.

Thank you,

Randy McGregor

[George_Thompson]

Have you run this tool to see what it says?: https://pro.arcgis.com/en/pro-app/latest/get-started/pro-performance-tool-overview.htm

This helps set some sort of baseline understanding.

What are the specs of the machine that you are running Pro on? (This should be reported in the tool above).

I can say that Pro does require more resources (CPU / RAM / GPU) than ArcMap ever did.........

[RandyMcGregor_BMcD]

Thank you. We'll give that a try. As for the general question - Is getting ArcPro to be as fast as ArcMap a reasonable goal, or does ArcPro's increased functionality come at an unavoidable cost in terms of time-required per function?

[DanPatterson]

More "stuff" to manage, it has always been slower since its inception, IMHO,

But

Troubleshooting Performance Issues in ArcGIS Pro

is a good read,

my big conclusion was work with local data on a gaming machine and never work with more than 2 maps, and if you need layouts, 1 is more than enough, if more is needed, split things up into separate projects

Of course that won't work for most

[RandyMcGregor_BMcD]

Thanks but locally stored data is not practical for us. We need to collaborate.

[ThomasHoman]

I don't believe we will ever see the performance of ArcMap in Pro. Devs are looking to add functionality anywhere they can but it appears little resource are being applied to core optimization. Just look at a core function such as creating a new fgdb. Map had the function built into the core while it feels, to me, that Pro as become largely a modular python slinger.

However there are odd exceptions if I may keep with the create a fgdb workflow. If one goes through the catalog and right clicks to create a new fgdb it takes a long time. Alternatively if you right click on a layer in the ToC and select Data->Export->New->File Geodatabase and select the same folder the creation is many orders faster. Go figure.

As others have said, keep all drivers up to date and minimize the size of your project. Performance will be much batter with 1 map and 1 layout in the project ala ArcMap. If feels to me that Pro seems 'snoopy' - I have a project that has 20+ maps in it and opening it means time to go get coffee while every possible thing is validated.

Tom

[AlfredBaldenweck]

Part of Pro's issue (and idk if it was a problem in ArcMap as well) is that, in addition to the CONSTANT license checks, it can't leave things alone. 

For example, if it has a broken link, it will check to see if it is still broken on. every. action. you. do. I cannot for the life of me figure out why it can't check once upon opening and then just ignore that broken link afterwards.

[AlfredBaldenweck]

This might be related.

https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-pro-ideas/reduce-the-amount-of-license-checking-in-order-to/idc...

[RandyKreuziger1]

Yes, checking the license manager, renaming feature classes, needing to launch Pro just to do data management compared to just launching ArcCatalog.  I could go on and on but nothing is going to come of this. 😞

[RandyMcGregor_BMcD]

Renaming maps takes SEVERAL MINUTES. Again, I hope it's not the new normal. Just trying to get a sense of the reality here.