File size shape after analysis space join

[joycemaia]

Hello,I have a question about file size. I'm with these specifications:

File 1: polygons / file size

1)     x_polygons.cpg = 1KB

2)     x_polygons.dbf = 4 KB

3)     x_polygons.prj = 1KB

4)     x_polygons.shp = 36.263 KB

5)     x_polygons.shp.xml = 6KB

6)     x_polygons.shx = 1KB

File 2: points / file size

1)     x_points.cpg = 1KB

2)     x_points.dbf = 599.740 KB

3)     x_points.prj = 1KB

4)     x_points.sbn = 8,813 KB

5)     x_points.sbx = 94 KB

6)     x_points.shp = 29,722KB

7)     x_points.shx = 8,492KB

When you cross the information from both (Analysis Tools -> Spatial Join) always returns a very large file shape (size = 2,097,217 KB). This is the size limit of a shape file, right? This happens regardless of the size of the files examined by Spatian Join.

Why does this happen?

Another thing seems missing files for polygons layer. It does not have files in the following extensions: .sbn and .sbx. This layer was generated from the merge function.

PS: the two files are in the same geodatabase, inside a folder with a short name and near the root. The files are also in the same projection.

Thank you!

[SepheFox]

Hi Joyce, is this question regarding the same files you were working with on your previous question? First, if the files are in a geodatabase, then they are not shapefiles, they are feature classes, and you wouldn't be able to view the separate file types as you are now. The resulting spatial join should also be written to the same geodatabase, and then you won't have a problem with the shapefile size limit. The sbn/sbx files are spatial index files. Your result will automatically create one if it is written to a geodatabase.

[joycemaia]

Yes, this files are the same of the previous question.

I think I'm doing it all wrong. Despite being working with geodabase I export all analysis to a new shape files in another directory next to geodabase. I'm doing this because I was afraid of losing data and also to extrapolate the geodabase size.

[SepheFox · Accepted solution]

Yeah, have your results write to the same geodatabase as your input files. Why are you afraid of losing data? A file geodatabase has no size limit.

[joycemaia]

As I had never worked with the files like this I do not know the process and time are as they should be.

Except as the analysis within the geodabase it is very slow (very much!) Than just export the files.

Another thing is the size of the files in the geodatabase. Within minutes four similar processes occupied 500GB, my HD has only 2 Terabytes. If I do so I will not have space!

[joycemaia]

I did a test,

I do Join Spaces with shapes files "true". And the result was exactly the same! Always a shape file with 2GB

[SepheFox]

Yes, because as people have repeatedly mentioned, a shapefile has a 2GB size limit.

[joycemaia]

Hi,

I think I understand one of my mistakes, I thought the files relating to the sizes that I specified in another post I would not get a shape larger than 2GB. This is not true!

Except that this is not true, I can get something much bigger. Even though initial shapes are to be "as" large.

Well, the only way to solve this is break into smaller files.

Thank you again.

[DanPatterson_Retired]

Which I will reiterate again...birds-possible regions...surely the data can be parsed for most species in some logical fashion to speed up the joins and analysis.  Give it a thought...although birds of the world sounds like a good idea at one go, you can alway 'merge' output geometries after analysis.