Bulk publishing from SDE datastore versus Other publishing methods

147
2
11-30-2022 11:58 PM
Labels (2)
GeorgieCassar1
New Contributor III

Our aim is to publish many feature layers from our SDE geodatabases.   (ArcGIS v 10.9, SQL Server 2017)

We want the portal user to find data easily using tags and categories.   We have applied metadata nicely  within SDE.  (Descriptions, Tags, etc)     These layers are for querying and analysing only (not editing).

How do most large organisations publish their layers for these Portal users ??

1.  Bulk publish (Sync) their SDE datastore connections and share accordingly

2.  Create a few monster map documents and publish those from Pro.

3.   Use a script to publish a single feature service for each layer.  

 

Test so far prove that number 1 works OK.  The tags and descriptions can be searched when finding layers.   

Although I find the administration of the datastore a little cumbersome as I have to ensure the database connection username has access to the layer first.

Approach number 2 is not helpful because all the sub-layers of a feature service do not store their individual Tags or descriptions.  So the user can't search for the individual layers.

Approach number 3.   Is this worth pursuing ?

What do large ArcGIS Enterprise clients normally do here ?

0 Kudos
2 Replies
MarlonAmaya
Esri Contributor

@GeorgieCassar1 

You may be able to accomplish option 3 using the Bulk publishing from Portal. There are some considerations that you need to take with this option.

https://enterprise.arcgis.com/en/portal/latest/use/bulk-publish-arcgis-server-feature-layers.htm

 

Marlon

0 Kudos
GeorgieCassar1
New Contributor III

Thanks Marlon, this is what we already do so we are on the right track I guess.

Tags and descriptions go through to the metadata in the published services but it seems the metadata tool in ArcPro (ISO19115-3)  does not accept 'custom' topic categories so we will need to maintain those separately in Portal only.  The topic categories in the ISO standard are too broad for local government.

0 Kudos