Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5308C2E35EE for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:32:54 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 28232-02 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:32:49 -0400 (AST) Received: from hs-out-2122.google.com (hs-out-0708.google.com [64.233.178.248]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C8492E3628 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 14:32:51 -0400 (AST) Received: by hs-out-2122.google.com with SMTP id k27so790740hsc.3 for ; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:32:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:date:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent:from; bh=bg4hjHQqmESrHbErkcf1COZdMOSA9fFn+vSkV5aeMpc=; b=o/ePM+MvLhsvPtI8tCuKoD4ZxuPb7U0LZRlC979L84cip0QddeczPGvbQblAw5GEqe0GLgQizp6rRuDBBWoFdLWkaVNXwzM007uv7YuKdaS6jJmgiqaG/LQsyjbQV42zvPkBFd46loMrE7mo9gvM7G1ffa/UNXCqea8XV4PU5wo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent:from; b=nuIk6fUbipGNmNlrkg8EtsROJa/vxKZtclunys0x0xaO2vZugLfVrWTjaX605ftEqGPongFdk2w0i6hfQvAiJoN86k7wJOUe0rQ/VTjhLiB9ChWWwHMQJvmA6e3qBKL+zL+UoAdOR7iabeGNqWt9psz//qO0etXhLI4fXELrqvU= Received: by 10.141.211.13 with SMTP id n13mr1664709rvq.12.1201285969952; Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:32:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ( [99.232.171.32]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e17sm2038879qbe.1.2008.01.25.10.32.48 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:32:48 -0800 (PST) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 13:32:46 -0500 To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: 8.3rc1 Out of memory when performing update Message-ID: <20080125183246.GB32623@soleauthority.ca> Mail-Followup-To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org References: <20080124231433.2f312549@pmanson> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080124231433.2f312549@pmanson> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) From: cgallant@gmail.com X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200801/237 X-Sequence-Number: 28476 > > > A simple update query, over roughly 17 million rows, populating a > > newly added column in a table, resulted in an out of memory error > > when the process memory usage reached 2GB. Could this be due to a > > poor choice of some configuration parameter, or is there a limit on > > how many rows I can update in a single statement? > > > > I believe that it is plataform problem. Because on *nix this limit > don't occur. But I don't specialist Windows. On most Windows Servers(except for database edition and a few other variants), 2Gb is the most you can address to a single process without booting the machine with a special parameter called \3G which will allow for allocating up to 3Gb per process. That is the limit unless you get special versions of windows server 2003 as far as I know. If you do a google search on \3G with windows you will find what I am refering too. Hope that helps a bit. Cheers, --- Curtis Gallant cgallant@gmail.com