RE: Function-Based Index not working

There has been some good stuff on the Usenet list lately about the debating the usefulness of "CACHE" as opposed to KEEP buffer pool.

Ethan Post
perotdba (AIM), epost1 (Yahoo)

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2002 7:53 PM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L

Given the fact that the table is so small and frequently accessed, it will get
cached 'automagically'. No need to do anything.

Anjo.

On Thursday 05 September 2002 23:43, you wrote:
> Rachel,
> With a table that small I would consider caching the table to
> eliminate the io.
> I do not know if you can cache an IOT but then it should be even
> faster.
> Ron
> ROR

-- 
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
-- 
Author: Post, Ethan
  INET: Ethan.Post_at_ps.net

Fat City Network Services    -- (858) 538-5051  FAX: (858) 538-5051
San Diego, California        -- Public Internet access / Mailing Lists
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To REMOVE yourself from this mailing list, send an E-Mail message
to: ListGuru_at_fatcity.com (note EXACT spelling of 'ListGuru') and in
the message BODY, include a line containing: UNSUB ORACLE-L
(or the name of mailing list you want to be removed from).  You may
also send the HELP command for other information (like subscribing).