perf: Fix quadratic behavior of to_array_of_size

[neilconway]

Which issue does this PR close?

• Closes ScalarValue::to_array_of_size is slow for StringViewArray with many buffers #20458.
• Closes Avoid deep copying Utf8View array buffers in ScalarValue::to_array_of_size() #18159.

Rationale for this change

When array_to_size(n) was called on a List-like object containing a StringViewArray with b data buffers, the previous implementation returned a list containing a StringViewArray with n*b buffers, which results in catastrophically bad performance if b grows even somewhat large.

This issue was previously noticed causing poor nested loop join performance. #18161 adjusted the NLJ code to avoid calling to_array_of_size for this reason, but didn't attempt to fix the underlying issue in to_array_of_size. This PR doesn't attempt to revert the change to the NLJ code: the special-case code added in #18161 is still slightly faster than to_array_of_size after this optimization. It might be possible to address that in a future PR.

What changes are included in this PR?

• Instead of using repeat_n + concat to merge together n copies of the StringViewArray, we instead use take, which preserves the same number of buffers as the input StringViewArray.
• Add a new benchmark for this situation
• Add more unit tests for to_array_of_size

Are these changes tested?

Yes and benchmarked.

Are there any user-facing changes?

No.

AI usage

Iterated on the problem with Claude Code; I understand the problem and the solution.

[neilconway]

Benchmarks:

group                                    array-of-size-opt                      array-of-size-vanilla
-----                                    -----------------                      ---------------------
list_to_array_of_size/1_buffer/1024      1.00  1870.0±30.72µs        ? ?/sec    3.77      7.1±0.05ms        ? ?/sec
list_to_array_of_size/1_buffer/256       1.00    337.9±4.16µs        ? ?/sec    1.77    599.8±5.17µs        ? ?/sec
list_to_array_of_size/50_buffers/1024    1.00  1945.4±23.28µs        ? ?/sec    65.93   128.3±1.06ms        ? ?/sec
list_to_array_of_size/50_buffers/256     1.00    364.7±4.31µs        ? ?/sec    22.76     8.3±0.07ms        ? ?/sec

[neilconway]

I see #18159 already exists for this issue; I'll be optimistic and claim this PR closes it... 😅

[neilconway]

We could consider backing out the special-case logic in NLJ that was introduced in #18161, but that will require some consideration and benchmarking first. I tried a quick hack to remove the NLJ workaround but it hurt performance on a microbenchmark by ~15%

[comphead]

@Dandandan FYI

[comphead]

Thanks @neilconway the solution is elegant and makes a lot of sense