Hi Stephen, The impression I was getting from Magnus Hagander's blog was that a 32-bit version of Postgres could make use of >4Gb RAM when running on 64-bit Windows due to the way PG passes on the responsibility for caching onto the OS.. Is this definitely not the case then?
Here's where Im getting this from: http://blog.hagander.net/archives/73-PostgreSQL-vs-64-bit-windows.html Thanks, Tom On 2 June 2010 15:04, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > * Tom Wilcox (hungry...@googlemail.com) wrote: > > My question now becomes.. Since it works now, do those memory usage stats > > from resource monitor show that postgres is using all the available > memory > > (am I reading it wrong)? Is there a way to allocate 60GB of memory to the > > postgres process so that it can do all sorting, etc directly in RAM? Is > > there something I need to tell 64-bit Windows to get it to allocate more > > than 4GB of memory to a 32-bit postgres? > > uhh, a 32-bit program (Postgres, or any other) can't use more than 4G of > RAM. That would be the crux of the problem here. Either get a 64bit > build of PG for Windows (I'm not sure what the status of that is at the > moment..), or get off Windows and on to a 64bit Linux with a 64bit PG. > > Thanks, > > Stephen > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEARECAAYFAkwGZQsACgkQrzgMPqB3kijNXgCfSVVSLUqUNs5gCIx0wk44hEmQ > 0yIAoJYgfOqYZLjlftJ+0lU3WjUVoKHZ > =jdXN > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > >
