LIST partioning better than RANGE one here ?

In the following case below I show that I could use either RANGE or LIST partitioning for the same purpose:
> CREATE TABLE bazar
> (id NUMBER(10) NOT NULL,
> date_from DATE NOT NULL,
> date_to DATE,
> region NUMBER(10) NOT NULL)
> TABLESPACE stuff
> STORAGE (FREELISTS 0 FREELIST GROUPS 0)
> partition by RANGE (region)
> (partition R_01 values less than (2)
> pctfree 0 <...> <storage clauses...>
> tablespace S_R_01,
> partition R_02 values less than (3)
> pctfree 0 <...> <storage clauses...>)

> CREATE TABLE bazar
> (id NUMBER(10) NOT NULL,
> date_from DATE NOT NULL,
> date_to DATE,
> region NUMBER(10) NOT NULL)
> TABLESPACE stuff
> STORAGE (FREELISTS 0 FREELIST GROUPS 0)
> partition by LIST (region)
> (partition R_01 values (1)
> pctfree 0 <...> <storage clauses...>
> tablespace S_R_01,
> partition R_02 values (2)
> pctfree 0 <...> <storage clauses...>)

Of course I do not really draw any advantage out of the LIST option (as I've put only 1 value possible), but I wonder whether from an internal point of view the LIST option shouldn't be preferred because of some better feature related to this 9i functionality ? Anyone ever noticed anything regarding a difference of that kind ?

Thanks a lot.
Spendius Received on Tue Jan 31 2006 - 08:40:16 CST