"Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in
news:3f9660e8$0$9554$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au:
> Anurag Varma wrote:
>
>>
>> If a table is frequently scanned (i.e. very hot), it is going to
>> remain in the buffer pool no matter what. Its no good use putting it
>> in the KEEP pool.
>
> Disagree. The issue is not whether it would tend to want to stay in
> the buffer cache or not, but whether it is at risk of being dislodged
> by a rogue, huge, tablescan. By putting even a frequently-accessed
> table into the keep pool, you ensure it can't be dislodged by scans
> against large tables (assuming you haven't been daft enough to ask for
> them to go into the keep pool as well, of course!!).
>
> Such cache 'partitioning' has got to be a good thing in its own right.
>
> Regards
> HJR
Or whether it will dislodge other things in the buffer cache that would
otherwise still be there if it were placed in the keep pool to start
with.
Received on Wed Oct 22 2003 - 09:45:16 CDT