My organization is working on an application running on ArcGIS Engine. Previous versions of the application used primarily Shapefiles for displaying roads, parcels, buildings, etc. Since I was taught to avoid Shapefiles when managing data at my college job, I suggested moving to file geodatabases. Esri claims file geodatabases are optimized for performance and storage. My co-worker remembers hearing that Shapefiles usually draw faster. I didn't come across an article directly talking about this topic, so I thought I would ask the community. I'm leaning towards file geodatabases, but it would be nice to know if I'm missing out on anything that Shapefiles offer.
|
|
According to System Design Strategies - Software Performance, an Esri technical article, file geodatabases are faster than shapefiles in their specific tests. They go into a lot of additional detail regarding what bottlenecks may exist and other performance considerations for various ArcGIS software use cases.
|
|||||||||
|
|
An Uncompressed File Geodatabase for the same data is the fastest readable format for ArcGIS (ArcMap) (compared to legacy shapefile and arcinfo coverages of the same data) Though you can 'compact' a file geodatabase... http://help.arcgis.com/en/arcgisdesktop/10.0/help/index.html#/Compact/00170000000n000000/ But to draw faster data the it is pure processing power [chip speed], video card [RAM,Chipset], and Speed of the Physical RAM and speed of the hard drive or Solid State Drive in the Computer that makes the big difference. |
|||||||||||||||||
|
