Ian,

i> loading a million records into memory just because that
i> is the size of the table has never made any sense. That is not a good
i> "desktop" design. We do not know how many records are involved here, but
i> it looks like a large number.

I've learned years ago to use the word "never" with caution.
And yes, we do not know how many records are involved here and we do
not know why they are all loaded at once. Which makes stating it
doesn't make any sense even more incautious.

Regardless of the reasons, I think we are clear that, if the data
needs to be cached in application-provided structures, then reducing
the engine's cache size helps to reduce the memory footprint. Can we
agree on this, which seems to me all about which the OP is looking for
confirmation or denial?

Ciao
--
Nando Dessena
======================================================
I support Firebird, I am a Firebird Foundation member!
Join today at http://www.firebirdsql.org/ff/foundation
======================================================