Geographic Information Systems Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for cartographers, geographers and GIS professionals. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I have a large dataset that I am working with. Basically I have a table with 900,000 records that I join to a geodatabase feature layer, then convert that to a raster.

This process takes a total of about 15 minutes if I do it manually in ArcMap.

When I write a python script for it, it takes over 40 minutes.

The table join and creating a feature layer part of my script works fairly quickly (about 2 minutes) but it gets hung up on the convert to raster.

This is the code I am using to convert to raster


This script is imported into a toolbox. I'm not running it in an IDE.

share|improve this question
Are you sure you are converting to a raster of the same cellsize and extent as before? – whuber Mar 7 '13 at 23:29
I'm not sure the cellsize and extent should matter. There isn't any "before" really since I'm taking the polygon and converting it to raster. There was never a raster to start with. If I'm missing something let me know. Thanks! – Carson Mar 8 '13 at 1:18
I would try exporting the joined dataset so that no join lookup is required during rasterization. This may be slower outside of ArcMap due to missing attribute indexes. – dmahr Mar 8 '13 at 2:28
You said it takes longer in a script than in ArcMap. What whuber is asking is whether you are using the same cellsize and extent both in the script and when you do it manually. Cell size and extent have a major impact on processing speed because they dictate the volume of data being created (i.e. calculated and written to disk). Also remember that halving the cell size will quadruple the data volume, so you can rapidly balloon a raster, thus ramping up the processing times too. – MappaGnosis Mar 8 '13 at 8:31
Thanks for the clarification. I for sure am using the same cell size both ways. I didn't do anything with the extent in either situation though. I figured it would automatically use the extent from the polygon in both scenarios (is this wrong to assume?). – Carson Mar 8 '13 at 12:59

I got it figured out. I had to build the index for the join table. Doing this it actually made the program run even faster than doing it manually.

share|improve this answer
Excellent tip! The link in the comment by @dmahr above is a good reference on this. – ccn Mar 8 '13 at 16:32
FYI, build the index on the join table BEFORE you do the join. I first tried to build the index for the resulting joined feature class but it didn't help. – Carson Mar 8 '13 at 16:41

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.