"No more space on temporary disk..." ?

[PeteCresswell]

I'm running a query - MS Access 2000.

Available space on C: is about 9 gigs, but I notice that the query
seems to die with that error just about the time that JET3C27.TMP hits
two gigs.

Could JET3C27 be a .MDB in disguise?

[PeteCresswell]

> Could JET3C27 be a .MDB in disguise?

Looks to me like the answer is "Yes"...
Tried it several times and it bit the big one
every time the .TMP file hit 2 gigs.

Re-thought the query - broke it up into temp tables, which I
indexed on all joined fields....ran really fast, no problems and no big .TMP file.

[david epsom dot com dot au]

> > Could JET3C27 be a .MDB in disguise?

Not necessarily as such. The 2GB limitation comes
from the 2GB limitation of the original file system,
which comes from the 2GB limitation of signed 32
bit numbers. All that the failure indicates is that
Jet is using the same file system semantics for the
temp file that it uses for the database files: not
that the structure of the file matches that of an
LDB or MDB.

FWIW, it also indicates that Access 2000/Jet 4.0 is
using an archaic bit of upgraded Win 3.1 code that
writes to a temp file, instead of just requesting
memory and forcing Windows to do the swapping.

(david)

"PeteCresswell" <Go**********@FatBelly.com> wrote in message
news:74*************************@posting.google.co m...

Could JET3C27 be a .MDB in disguise?

Looks to me like the answer is "Yes"...
Tried it several times and it bit the big one
every time the .TMP file hit 2 gigs.

Re-thought the query - broke it up into temp tables, which I
indexed on all joined fields....ran really fast, no problems and no big

..TMP file.

[Trevor Best]

david epsom dot com dot au wrote:

FWIW, it also indicates that Access 2000/Jet 4.0 is
using an archaic bit of upgraded Win 3.1 code that
writes to a temp file, instead of just requesting
memory and forcing Windows to do the swapping.

Can you imagine the outcry if Access was regularly requesting over 2Gigs
of RAM from Windows? Perhaps that has something to do with it,
especially if people still run the other upgraded bit of Win 3.1 code,
i.e. windows 98/me, oh hang on.... http://www.besty.org.uk/memory.htm
from that graph you can imagine it took several minutes for poor ol' 98
to allocate that much swap space. The original cry I got from the client
was that the procedure hangs. I tried it in NT4 where I had an upper
limit on my swapfile and very quickly found the problem.

--
Error reading sig - A)bort R)etry I)nfluence with large hammer

[david epsom dot com dot au]

> i.e. windows 98/me, oh hang on.... http://www.besty.org.uk/memory.htm

ROFL...

"Trevor Best" <nospam@localhost> wrote in message
news:40***********************@auth.uk.news.easyne t.net...

david epsom dot com dot au wrote:

FWIW, it also indicates that Access 2000/Jet 4.0 is
using an archaic bit of upgraded Win 3.1 code that
writes to a temp file, instead of just requesting
memory and forcing Windows to do the swapping.

Can you imagine the outcry if Access was regularly requesting over 2Gigs
of RAM from Windows? Perhaps that has something to do with it,
especially if people still run the other upgraded bit of Win 3.1 code,
i.e. windows 98/me, oh hang on.... http://www.besty.org.uk/memory.htm
from that graph you can imagine it took several minutes for poor ol' 98
to allocate that much swap space. The original cry I got from the client
was that the procedure hangs. I tried it in NT4 where I had an upper
limit on my swapfile and very quickly found the problem.

--
Error reading sig - A)bort R)etry I)nfluence with large hammer

[rkc]

"Trevor Best" <nospam@localhost> wrote in message
news:40***********************@auth.uk.news.easyne t.net...

Can you imagine the outcry if Access was regularly requesting over 2Gigs
of RAM from Windows? Perhaps that has something to do with it,
especially if people still run the other upgraded bit of Win 3.1 code,
i.e. windows 98/me, oh hang on.... http://www.besty.org.uk/memory.htm
from that graph you can imagine it took several minutes for poor ol' 98
to allocate that much swap space. The original cry I got from the client
was that the procedure hangs. I tried it in NT4 where I had an upper
limit on my swapfile and very quickly found the problem.

Love the betsy dot org home page.