> > Nope, the query is way too expensive to run it twice. (GIN
> scan over
> > well over half a million rows. It's faster to do the
> > get-as-cursor-then-loop-and-increment, I've measured that)
>
> Can't you select into a temporary table and then do select
> count(*) over that table, aswell as run your cursor over that
> temporary table?
> Or is that way to space expensive?
I could, but just looping through the resultset is cheaper than that -
everything sticks in memory. The actual resultset isn't thatbig (max
1,000 rows), so there is no real risk to run out of memory for it inside
the functino.
//Magnus