| Author |
memory
|
vijayapriya thirumurugan
Greenhorn
Joined: Apr 03, 2009
Posts: 16
|
|
hello sir,
Object[][] el=new Object[100][100];
It is working. but i need Object[][] el=new Object[100000][100000];
you sent if i declare
int n=100000;
Object[][] el=new Object[n][n];
it'll work. but it doesn't work.
the error: Exception in thread "main" java.lang.OutOfMemoryError: Java heap space
can i store 100000 of values.
|
 |
Rob Spoor
Sheriff
Joined: Oct 27, 2005
Posts: 19216
|
|
|
If you do a search you'll find several posts that explain how to assign more memory to the JVM. How much you'll need I can't tell you though, you'll have to play around a bit with different values.
|
SCJP 1.4 - SCJP 6 - SCWCD 5
How To Ask Questions How To Answer Questions
|
 |
Campbell Ritchie
Sheriff
Joined: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 32654
|
|
|
You are not storing 100000 values in the second example, but 10000000000. You will require a heap space of several tens of GB to fit it in. Most PCs don't have that amount of memory available at all.
|
 |
Brian Legg
Ranch Hand
Joined: Nov 07, 2008
Posts: 488
|
|
What are you doing exactly that you would need to do something like that? or are you just testing the JVM limits?
There are more than likely several different work-arounds to doing something like that. Do you really need 10 billion objects in memory all at the same time? Couldn't you read/write/execute/whatever your objects a few at a time? If this is a real problem that you need help with than please give us more details to assist you with. Increasing your system memory is not a good solution in my opinion because I can't think of a single situation in which you would have to have 10 billion objects in memory at one time.
|
SCJA
~Currently preparing for SCJP6
|
 |
Campbell Ritchie
Sheriff
Joined: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 32654
|
|
|
If you need 10000000000 (= 100 crore) objects, you would do better to put them into a database. That will happily hold that many objects, assuming you have enough hard drive space.
|
 |
Balu Sadhasivam
Ranch Hand
Joined: Jan 01, 2009
Posts: 874
|
|
10000000000 (= 100 crore)
that sounds more Indian
|
 |
Campbell Ritchie
Sheriff
Joined: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 32654
|
|
Balu Sadhasivam wrote:that sounds more Indian
Very definitely English . . . but I try to speak your language
|
 |
Sridhar Santhanakrishnan
Ranch Hand
Joined: Mar 20, 2007
Posts: 317
|
|
Campbell Ritchie wrote:1000,00,00,000 (= 100 crore) objects
More like 1000 crore. But full marks for the effort
|
 |
Campbell Ritchie
Sheriff
Joined: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 32654
|
|
I did say "try". I'm glad I didn't say "Succeed"
|
 |
Brian Legg
Ranch Hand
Joined: Nov 07, 2008
Posts: 488
|
|
Ok.... what's a crore? Let the rest of us in
|
 |
Campbell Ritchie
Sheriff
Joined: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 32654
|
|
|
I thought it was 10^8 (100,000,000) but it is actually 10^7 (10,000,000).
|
 |
Brian Legg
Ranch Hand
Joined: Nov 07, 2008
Posts: 488
|
|
So it's an Indian word that represents 10 million? Why would you need such a measurement? The largest measurement I can think of for money that isn't a real number would be a grand or $1,000 :P
|
 |
Campbell Ritchie
Sheriff
Joined: Oct 13, 2005
Posts: 32654
|
|
Maybe it's the number of Java programmers in Bangalore?
But let's get this thread back on topic
|
 |
 |
|
|
subject: memory
|
|
|