> 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?
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org/
