2

I'm having an issue running several dissolves in both Arcgis 10.1 and Python 2.7.2, and 10.2.2 and Python 2.7.5 using arcpy.Dissolve_management (I'm working on 2 virtual machines). In both cases the dissolves are taking an extremely long time, sometimes multiple days. They do work eventually, but as I have several to do, I can't afford to wait days in between each run. I have 16GBs of RAM on each machine and I'm using x64 background processing. I thought it was file size at first, as some of my files are quite large, but I'm finding the same issue with files with as few as 100 features. I've tried Repair Geometry first, and I've made sure background geoprocessing is turned off. The files are in a file geodatabase.

closed as unclear what you're asking by PolyGeo Sep 16 '16 at 8:10

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    Obvious question, what is your data? A few points or massively multi-part? An image would be good? – Hornbydd Sep 7 '16 at 13:53
  • 2
    When you write that you are running several dissolves, does that mean that you have several feature classes that you need to dissolve? Or that you are running the dissolve multiple times? – mmoore Sep 7 '16 at 14:11
  • 1
    Does your fgdb need to be Compacted? Also, an Attribute Index for the fields included in Dissolve will help speed up the processing time. – klewis Sep 7 '16 at 14:48
  • @Hornbydd the data is river networks. It's mutli-part. Within the table I have name, Strahler value and length. I'm trying to dissolve based on name. Thank you!! – user69764 Sep 7 '16 at 15:02
  • 1
    Did you try dropping the spatial index before running the dissolve, then re-creating it afterwards? Perhaps arcgis is try to rebuild the spatial index of each feature as it writes them. If each feature has a lot of vertices and a large extent, the resulting spatial index is likely very large. That also illustrates a good reason NOT to combine features - the display performance will degrade since there are so many overlapping MBRs for things like rivers. – Kirk Kuykendall Sep 7 '16 at 16:02