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 <sfrost@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
* Tom Wilcox (hungrytom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> My question now becomes.. Since it works now, do those memory usage statsuhh, a 32-bit program (Postgres, or any other) can't use more than 4G of
> 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?
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-----
