Hi Kirk,
>Perhaps there is a confusing part in the presented table where you indicated >master(512), master(256), master(128). >Because the master is not supposed to use the BUF_DROP_FULL_SCAN_THRESHOLD and >just execute the existing default full scan of NBuffers. >Or I may have misunderstood something? Sorry for your confusion, I didn't make it clear. I didn't use BUF_DROP_FULL_SCAN_THRESHOLD for master. Master(512) means the test table amount in master is same with patched(512), so does master(256) and master(128). I meant to mark 512/256/128 to distinguish results in master for the three threshold(applied in patches) . Regards Tang
