>>
>>If I may ask you a follow up question, please.
>>
>>If I wanted to simply know how many records in a table matching some WHERE clause, and I want it as fast as possible (and then close the table), and I don't know how many records are in the resulting query (could be 1 or could be 1000 but probably not more than 1000), would your answer, "it depends" still apply?
>
>I'm not sure I uderstand your question. Anyway, why don't you use
>SELECT COUNT(*) WHERE < condition > INTO ARRAY laCount
>* or
>COUNT FOR < condition >
?
As soon as I sent you my message/question, I thought about the same, why not use COUNT(*). This way, no cursor is created and there will be only one element in the resulting array. I have not thought about COUNT FOR approach. It is probably RUSHMORE optimized too so it should work.
Thank you very much!
"The creative process is nothing but a series of crises." Isaac Bashevis Singer
"My experience is that as soon as people are old enough to know better, they don't know anything at all." Oscar Wilde
"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that too." W.Somerset Maugham
