Stefan Krause-Lichtenberg wrote:
> and check if you have 'hot tables' - for these tables a new named cache makes sense.
There are two different "schools of thought" about this. Let me explain the other, which you may have guessed it's also my own opinion. Hot tables manage to keep their pages in the pools, even when they share the default data cache, simply as a natural consequence of their high activity. Then, named caches are not a requirement to guarantee that their pages stay in memory. Named caches do serve well for a secondary target: reducing spinlocks by distributing access thru more caches, but this goal may also be achieved by cache partitioning.
I wouldn't say named caches are a bad idea for hot tables. It's only a matter of accepting the extra effort of keeping many named caches well tuned.
Regards,
Mariano Corral Herranz