Re: memory

From: Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net>
To: Andrew Sullivan <andrew(at)libertyrms(dot)info>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: memory
Date: 2002-07-18 02:27:41
Message-ID: Pine.NEB.4.44.0207181124480.681-100000@angelic.cynic.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

On Tue, 16 Jul 2002, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> Any 32-bit x86-based system is going to have some kind of evil hack
> lurking around the 4 Gig mark. It's just an inherent limitation of a
> 32-bit address space.

Well, it's going to be well under 4 gig for Unix; 2 gig or 3 gig is more
typical, since part of every process' address space is dedicated to
kernel use.

However, when it comes to postgres you're not likely to see any evil
hacks unless you want to dedicated more than a couple of gig to
postgres' shared memory buffers. The OS's cached disk blocks need not
all be mapped at the same time, and each process has a separate address
space, so the total memory used by cached disk blocks and all of the
processes in the system can be well over 4 GB without any problems at all.

cjs
--
Curt Sampson <cjs(at)cynic(dot)net> +81 90 7737 2974 http://www.netbsd.org
Don't you know, in this new Dark Age, we're all light. --XTC

In response to

  • Re: memory at 2002-07-16 12:54:43 from Andrew Sullivan

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Curt Sampson 2002-07-18 02:32:22 Re: OIDs (Or: another RTFM question?)
Previous Message Darren Ferguson 2002-07-18 01:59:39 Re: DELETE FROM error message