>
It doesn't make sense to have a cursor with 2Gb. Cursor usually deal with only a subset of a table.
>

I agree...but alas....that was not the point....

Cursors are in memory representations of DBF's - and often, they are manifested as files on disk.

The main point - it is absurd to make the argument that cursors and dbfs are dis-similar. Indeed, there are differences - as Walter pointed out. However, the differences are insignifcant insofar as functionality is concerned.

John