Re: Index compression vs. table compression

"Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote:

>No they don't. They say that it is unnecessary and less effective than
>the multiple buffer pools feature you seem not quite to grasp properly.
>CACHE was an attempt to keep large full table scans at the cold end of
>the LRU list, and thus prevent the warm half from being flushed out.
>Precisely what the RECYCLE pool does. Only the RECYCLE pool does the job
>more effectively and more certainly, because it's not trying to
>'partition' a single LRU list, but has one all to itself.

To my understanding, the CACHE option does the opposite: put the data in the MRU, e.g, at the hot end, of the cache. In this case, it can't be ever meant to be something similar to the use of the RECYCLE pool!

Would anybody correct me if I am wrong?

Regards
Rick Denoire Received on Thu Dec 30 2004 - 16:31:46 CST