Not if the SYS function you're using to determine the bounds is blowing up 
because it can't understand what is being returned. 

The point I was trying to get to was even if it can "see" up to 3GB or 4GB, it 
doesn't use it in an efficient way. That was the gist of what I had read; once 
you go over a certain allocation there's no discernible performance improvement 
to be had. So just cap it at 480MB or 512MB and leave the rest to the OS.

Of course, as TR would say, you need to test in your environment with realistic 
data sets before determining what the optimal SYS(3050) setting is. Or maybe 
Christof will pop in and give us the definitive answer... :-)

--
rk

-----Original Message-----
From: ProfoxTech [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of MB 
Software Solutions, LLC
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2012 3:03 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: SYS(3050) error on Win 7, x64 (64-bit) machine

On 10/5/2012 2:54 PM, John Weller wrote:
> Both return 536870912 on this machine, 8Gb RAM

And these two lines should have preventing the return number from being larger 
than that, but alas for some reason it still failed on machines where the 
memory was > 4GB.

SYS(3050, 1, MIN(536870912, VAL(SYS(3050, 1, 0)))) SYS(3050, 2, MIN(536870912, 
VAL(SYS(3050, 1, 0))))

--
Mike Babcock, MCP
MB Software Solutions, LLC
President, Chief Software Architect
http://mbsoftwaresolutions.com
http://fabmate.com
http://twitter.com/mbabcock16

[excessive quoting removed by server]

_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/DF1EEF11E586A64FB54A97F22A8BD0442172AECF80@ACKBWDDQH1.artfact.local
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Reply via email to