cache vs keep buffer pool

If I have a small table that is accessed very frequently what is the advantage of moving it over to the keep buffer pool as opposed to just 'cache' it using the cache storage parameter? If it is accessed very frequently the blocks should be cached in the buffer pool and chances of them getting aged out should be slim. So, what advantage would the keep buffer pool offer in this case?

Another question.
With multiple db writers and db block lru latches, how do the db writers get assigned to do all the work? The documentation says that they are assigned to the lru latches (working sets) in a round robin fashion. If that is the case, how is it possible for the db writers to be NOT equally loaded?
Maybe I am missing some points here. Am I?

rgds
Daud Received on Mon Aug 26 2002 - 10:11:10 CDT