Why is ArcGIS Pro so slow?

[ClintonJenkins1]

I like ArcGIS Pro. It is clearly a step forward in many ways. But why is it so slow for what are very simple things that should be nearly instantaneous. For example, if I want to adjust the symbology of something, ever single step causes the program to whir and think for about ten seconds, even when the layer is turned off! What exactly does it have to think about when the layer is not even rendering?

Almost every action in the program seems to generate some unknown processing demand. I can understand if the map is updating or a tool is running, but it seems to be for everything. This really drags down productivity and leaves me frustrated. If it wasn´t for this, I´d probably start switching to Pro completely. With all these lags though, it is impossible.

None of the data are on the network. Windows 10 machine, 32GB ram, fast video card not even close to maxed out. Most data are on SSD drives. 

[JakeNeedle]

I am experiencing overall slowness of ArcGIS Pro 2.4. My data is located on a network but comparing the same processes completed in ArcMap with the same data, ArcGIS Pro is 50x slower. 

One example is just grouping layers in the Contents Pane. With ArcMap this is completed in half a second and it takes ArcGIS Pro 10 to 15 seconds?????  Can ESRI explain what is going on here? 

Also moving data locally is not an acceptable answer to the issue. ArcGIS Pro is suppose to be next-gen and able to utilize more computing power but it is badly failing with simple tasks.  

[George_Thompson]

I would recommend you work with Esri Technical support on the performance issue to see if there is anything that can be improved. If we are able to determine an issue, the development team can review to see if it may be mitigated.

[JakeNeedle]

Technical Support was no help with this issue.

[George_Thompson]

Sorry to hear that. What was the result of the case or suggestions from the analyst?

[BillHegman]

Any resolution to this speed issue?  We are teaching a course using ArcGIS Pro 2.4 for the first time this fall, and it's unusable over our network.  We have the students copy the data to the local drive, do the work and then copy it back to the server.  It's so fast and stable on the local drive but unusable on the network.

[Robert_LeClair]

Bill - not to be flippant at all but have you logged an incident with Esri Support Services to see if they can determine why AGP performance via your network is painfully slow?  If not, I'd recommend you do so to assist in troubleshooting this issue.  Hopefully they can resolve the issue to make AGP more usuable in your environment.

[BillHegman]

Robert,

Thanks.  I will call them, but I want to do some additional testing before I call so I have a better baseline.  I just need to find the time to do the testing.  I suspect ESRI knows about the problem, and I'm sure a technical support call will consume a fair amount of my time because I'll have to start at the bottom of the queue and go through a lot of questions and sometimes painful testing.  I'd love to bypass the initial call and get directly to a network expert, but in my experience, that doesn't always happen.  I've been using ArcGIS Desktop over our network for 21 years and I've tested ArcGIS Desktop and QGIS across the network recently with no problems, so I'm pretty sure the problem is, in large part, ArcGIS Pro.   Still many variables have changed this past few months including our location on campus, some of the inner workings of the network, some changes to the virus software and our use of ArcGIS Pro for teaching.   So I'm hoping I can find some ways to improve the performance.  

[JakeNeedle]

I have contacted technical support about this issue last week and they have been no assistance in resolving the performance issues. 

[George_Thompson]

Nevermind you answered my questions in another post on the other thread: https://community.esri.com/thread/199197-why-does-arcgis-pro-have-to-be-so-slow

[AdrianMarsden]

For us, it is unusable for a daily GIS.  Still.  We only use it where we have to/