>>>If I had 1000 values that I need to loop through (visit every node sequentially, not skip around) that needed very fast processing and they do not need disk storage... which would be faster... an array or a cursor?
>>
>>Cursor.
>
>Wow really? I've never done any testing, but I assumed the array would be faster. I suppose a quick test with the coverage profiler would tell us for sure.

I tried both of them; cursors faster, expecially with big values.