> Yes, good catch, I'll investigate. Looks like in the current implementation > something is not quite right, when we have this order of columns in an index > and where clause (e.g. in the examples above everything seems fine if we create > index over (feedcode, market) and not the other way around).
I did a little bit of investigation and it seems to occur because in pathkeys.c the function pathkey_is_redundant considers pathkeys redundant if there is an equality condition with a constant in the corresponding WHERE clause.
* 1. If the new pathkey's equivalence class contains a constant, and isn't
* below an outer join, then we can disregard it as a sort key. An example:
*SELECT ... WHERE x = 42 ORDER BY x, y;
In planner.c it builds the list of distinct_pathkeys, which is then used for the index skip scan to skip over the first length(distinct_pathkeys) columns when it does a skip. In my query, the distinct_pathkeys list only contains 'feedcode' and not 'market', because 'market' was considered redundant due to the WHERE clause. However, the index skip scan interprets this as that it has to skip over just the first column.
We need to get this list of number of prefix columns to skip differently while building the plan. We need the 'real' number of distinct keys without throwing away the redundant ones. However, I'm not sure if this information can still be obtained while calling create_skipscan_unique_path? But I'm sure people here will have much better ideas than me about this :-)