POST
|
I never did. Or I don't think I did: it's been a while! 🙂 I perform all my change detection now using FME. MUCH more fine-grained...
... View more
02-06-2018
09:46 AM
|
0
|
1
|
1002
|
POST
|
Well, resetting the Normal.mxd has fixed the problem. Thank you so much all of you and Rebecca in particular for your insights. I had a couple of custom Addin toolbars in the mxt that of course are gone now that I've reset. I will at least be able to troubleshoot the issue now going forward. Thanks again, Brian
... View more
05-04-2017
09:15 AM
|
0
|
1
|
241
|
POST
|
Thanks; yes, essentially getting different colleagues to try the same test while logged into the network share is the same thing. I did that just now and found that: the ones who don't normally experience a slow 10.3 field calc, didn't. Their test speeds were all comparable at about 0.19 seconds. for those who DO normally experience a slow 10.3 field cal, the slow down happens when in an Edit session only (18 - 21 seconds). When performing a field calc outside an Edit session, the time for the same test averages .48 seconds.
... View more
05-04-2017
09:04 AM
|
0
|
0
|
241
|
POST
|
p.s. I will be conferring with colleagues in the morning as apparently some of them do not have any trouble with Field Calculator in 10.3 while at least one other person besides me does. I will see if I can get the successful Calculators to take a poke at this test data. More to come... Thanks for the feedback. B
... View more
05-03-2017
07:26 PM
|
1
|
0
|
1122
|
POST
|
Hi, I ran the compact from ArcCatalog but there was little difference in the calc time 17.45 seconds (actually, I think this is one of the things I had tried previously...) We're on a government network and none of us can install apps so installing the background geoprocessing from MyEsri is kindof out. Upgrading the GDB is greyed out in Catalog because the GDB is already at the correct version. Adding an index on the ID field had negligible effect 17.3 seconds)
... View more
05-03-2017
07:18 PM
|
0
|
1
|
1122
|
POST
|
We work on the BC Government shared environment so the data is indeed networked, as are the various ArcMap versions. That said, I am/was able to copy and run the data from the C:\temp directory of the server with ArcMap10.3.1 running on it. The difference in the results were negligible: 19.39 seconds for the same calculation. Thanks for the response though 🙂
... View more
05-03-2017
03:15 PM
|
0
|
1
|
1122
|
POST
|
When using the 'Field Calculator...' in the Attribute Table on selected records in 10.3, the calculations (even simple ones like setting an integer field = 1) are excruciatingly slow. When using the 'Field Calculator...' on selected records in 10.2, the calculations are blisteringly fast. See the attached image. The split screen shows the identical calculation performed on a selected set of simple lines. In 10.2, the calculation took 0.23 seconds. In 10.3, the exact same calculation on the exact same number of selected lines took 20.13 seconds. Why? I have been over all of the settings, environment variables, everything I can think of but there are no differences between the settings that I can see. Have I missed something? (Besides my marbles, I mean...) TIA, Brian
... View more
05-03-2017
11:49 AM
|
1
|
12
|
3453
|
POST
|
I found the same thing as Holly: some of the 2679 linear features I'm running through the tool have been flagged both as D and as N. I thought I would familiarize myself with the tool by comparing a feature class in a file geodatabase to itself. To do this, I copied the original GDB and then pointed the Update Features to the first GDB and the Base Features to the second GDB and ran the tool with a Search Distance of .01m (our established standard tolerance). That's it, nothing else, none of the optional parameters filled in. I would expect that the tool would return every record as 'NC' (No Change) because I haven't changed anything at all but...as Holly pointed out, some of the records are flagged as both 'N' (New) and 'D' (Deleted). An examination of the optional output table when I reran it shows that for many of the SRC_FID values, there are -1 values in the TGT_FID and further down, those exact same SRC_FID show up in the TGT_FID with a SRC_FID value of -1. Why are these records not being matched? The GDBs are identical and all the records should be 'NC'. What am I missing? TIA Brian ArcMap 10.2
... View more
06-19-2016
05:21 AM
|
0
|
2
|
1002
|
POST
|
In this code sample, why are you resetting the toolPath on line 13 from what you set it to on line 05?
... View more
10-18-2015
07:23 AM
|
0
|
1
|
1351
|
Title | Kudos | Posted |
---|---|---|
1 | 05-03-2017 11:49 AM | |
1 | 05-03-2017 07:26 PM |
Online Status |
Offline
|
Date Last Visited |
11-11-2020
02:25 AM
|