I wrote: > Cutting his value for shared_buffers (currently about 800MB) might be > wise too. I'm not sure what the effectively available address space > for a win32 process is, but if there's any inefficiency in the way > the address space is laid out, those numbers could be enough to be > trouble.
Actually, a bit of googling turns up this: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx which says that the available userspace address range for a win32 process is only *two* gig (although you can get to three using tricks that I doubt are in his PG build). Take 800M+500M off the top, and it's not too hard to credit that it might be tricky to swing a cat in the remainder; especially given that it sounds like he's running complex queries that could want to eat a lot of working RAM themselves. IOW, these numbers are too big for your system. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
