Why does ArcGIS Pro have to be so slow???

63177
253
08-01-2017 11:31 AM
ericmeyers1
New Contributor III

Why is ArcGIS Pro so slow? To select assets, field calculate, display layers, change symbology... the easiest of tasks that are commonly utilized within ArcMap are a drag on the software.

When will ArcGIS Pro become faster than ArcMap? That will be the day it could replace it as the goto product for GIS professionals.

253 Replies
VladimirStojanovic
New Contributor III

David, I can feel your pain. That will not help you, though, I am aware of it. With this answer I try to give you moral support, I cannot more.

Unfortunately, I experience everyday the same or very similar issues, geoprocessing window stalls, freezes and all you can do about it is to restart the whole operation (and I am not doing any rocket science here).

It is very disappointing for me and I am here even not speaking of fundamental leak of most profound and simple functions in attribute table, which is to my understanding completely useless at the moment. And this moment lasts for years now. And ESRI lets us vote about it.

As you said, it hurts my brain. Altogether with explanations of ESRI staff about why is it so and how good and thoughtful that ### voting is for us small users...

Sadly, I don't have got so much time, to participate in ESRI social games, say user support in their way. I have to work for living in the meantime. Paying and using ESRI GIS software every day.

Keep smiling, hoping for better future!;)

ThomasColson
MVP Frequent Contributor

So this is Pro 2.2 for over 10 minutes while doing nothing other than "Download Map". Happens with all of our feature service, which, BTW, download in less than a minute in Arc. Frequently pushed the CPU into 99 and 100% territory and caused extreme sluggishness when doing something else (e.g read emails while waiting forever for Pro to complete a task). Not entirely convinced this 64-bit capability is an improvement. 

DanPatterson_Retired
MVP Esteemed Contributor

I am beginning to suspect that the 8 Gb recommended is the new low.  

What else are you running in that example?

0 Kudos
ThomasColson
MVP Frequent Contributor

One tab of Chrome, then all of the background processes. I have numerous examples of stuff like this, as well as a few TS cases on the topic. But yes, while 4 cores and 8 GB returns as "Recommended" in the "Can You Run It" app, what I'm seeing in testing on over 1 dozen workstations is that translates to "Pro will start but don't expect to get a lot done". FWIW with I think one exception, these are all SSD's as well. For a large org, where Arc Map ran "decently" on the Etch-A-Sketch email checkers we normally get, telling IT that we need to start getting 3000$ Etch-A-Sketches is as likely as two raccoons in a bag of feed corn getting along....memory prices have spiked pretty high lately. 

SeanHlousek
Occasional Contributor III

Thanks for sharing.

I'm experiencing similar results.  

I've also noticed that PRO crashes regularly if my memory (which is 32GB) exceeds 50% for more than a minute. 

I've noticed that when I start accumulating a lot of Layouts and Maps within a project that the project takes longer and longer to open. Right now I have a project with about 30 maps and 25 layouts and it takes twice as long to open as projects with fewer maps and layouts.   I had planned to use the same project for several years but at this rate I may need to make "versions" of my projects in order for them to open in a reasonable amount of time.

Finally, I know PRO uses the GPU and I have duel Nvidia Quadro P1000's, but drawing time seems on par with ArcMap - which seems ridiculous.  I make pretty complex land maps so I expect they'll take some time to draw, but a totally re-written product like PRO should draw faster than the legacy product it's replacing.   Ideally it would draw MUCH faster.  

MikeW
by
New Contributor III

Exact same problem here... Pro was great for the first week... then as project accumulated maps and layers loading was prohibitively long to the point I had to move back to ArcMap.  Really horrible and disappointing.

MichaelVolz
Esteemed Contributor

This type of issue where the aprx is around for some time and is getting more complex over time is something that ESRI needs to test more thoroughly.  Whenever you open an incident with ESRI to replicate your issue, they use a fresh environment so they most likely won't see the issue because they will not let the aprx linger around or make it more complex.

SeanHlousek
Occasional Contributor III

They REALLY need to work on performance.

Its one thing to force users to re-learn workflows and figure out where tools are in the new system, (or if they exist), but when you do that AND the base performance is equal to or less than the legacy product, its a MAJOR problem.

I've been working primarily with Pro now for about 4 months.  There are a few things that I like, and a few "directions" where I see they are going in the right direction even if they aren't quite there.  (For Example: I couldn't stand Legends at first and I still think its anything but "intuitive", BUT, now that I've built a bunch of layouts and I understand where to find things - Legends are heading in the right direction....)  

Unfortunately,  there is far more I'm VERY disappointed with.  Performance is probably top on that list but even beyond that they've made the UI more cumbersome in some ways.   For example, they have migrated workflows that were simple operations in ArcMap into tools that you have to run in PRO.  Select By Attributes and Calculate Field are two process that feel more clunky in PRO than in ArcMap - and those are CORE functions.  They might fundamentally be about the same but the interface itself takes longer in PRO.    At first I thought this was because I hadn't gotten used to it yet, but now that I've worked with the program for four months I've confirmed that it's just not as easy to use as ArcMap.   And don't even get me started on how terrible editing anything in a table is in PRO!  It's almost unusable.  I edit tables in ArcMap.

I'm hanging in there and fighting through the performance and changes but I'm also exploring QGIS as an alternative for at least some workflows.  The interesting thing is that even while learning from the ground up in QGIS, the performance and difficult UI in PRO makes learning QGIS roughly similar in terms of time spent.  Plus I get to expand my skill-set.

TylerSchwartz2
Occasional Contributor II

I find that in Pro, even simple maps with only a few layers is very sluggish.  Even just clicking a layer (and doing nothing else) causes the spinning wheel.  Right clicking to open an attribute table, and then scrolling through the attribute table is just horrible in Pro, whereas in ArcMap its highly responsive and fast....  I have installed Pro on two different computers with the exact same results.  Its not my local settings, its Pro.

Pro development team really needs to do better - Pro needs to be faster and better than ArcMap.  Despite the nicer interface and more diverse symbology options (which is great!), at the end of the day, if the program isnt at least as crisp and responsive as ArcMap, I get less work done.  I work in the private sector and efficiency/quickness with UI interactions is highly important to me.

AlexZhuk
Regular Contributor

I like the last sentence!