On Mar 26, 2010, at 8:11 AM, NSRT Mail account. wrote: > I have a database with a single table. The database is 23922826240 > bytes. The table has 2147483685 rows in it. > > Running: UPDATE t SET v=1; makes my application start to use all > available RAM, then swap, and is finally killed by the OS (I do not > have 23GB of free RAM+swap).
As part of UPDATE processing, the rowid of every row to be updated is stored in RAM. Normally this is not a problem, since it is unusual to want to update 2147483685 rows in one go. Try running your updates in batches of a million or so. > > Should running an UPDATE cause the table to first be copied to RAM > and modified there? Is there any way to get this UPDATE to work with > meager resources (given at least 50GB free on the partition the > database is stored on)? > > Thanks. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users@sqlite.org > http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users D. Richard Hipp d...@hwaci.com _______________________________________________ sqlite-users mailing list sqlite-users@sqlite.org http://sqlite.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
