Large attribute tables in UN feature classes - performance question

[LizAbbey]

Hi All,

Does anyone have experience in creating very large attribute tables for your UN feature classes? Does this impact performance of tracing or other UN functionality? The fields will not be populated or controlled by attribute rules, but will have domains assigned. Field numbers could run up to 300 additional on top of the required network fields.

I have simply been asked this question and am trying to relay experience (knowing this type of data structure is probably not best-practice).

Thanks for your thoughts,

Liz

[LizAbbey · Accepted solution]

@JohnAlsup , I assume your answer on this post more or less answers my question to the extent that is known by Esri: Solved: Re: Best Practices for Attribute Data Modeling in ... - Page 2 - Esri Community

Which is: Yes, there is an impact by adding more attributes, but the impact has not been quantified.

[JohnAlsup · Accepted solution]

Yes, adding a lot of fields to a UN table will impact performance.  Places where it will impact will be, Opening  a Map or Service, Reconcile, Opening the Attribute pane.  I'm sure there are other places it will impact.  This is why in our Foundation Solutions we demonstrate field re-use. Also, the length of data in each field could have an impact.  Strings obviously have a larger impact relative to their size as the data will be compressed before being transmitted on the network.