Optimise AST rewriting

[systay]

Description

Merges RewriteAST and Normalizer so both actions can be done together. The less we need to walk the AST, the faster we can work with queries.

                                  │ ../benchmarks/v0.txt │       ../benchmarks/v1.txt        │
                                  │        sec/op        │   sec/op     vs base              │
Planner/from_cases.json-gen4-20              7.416m ± 1%   7.143m ± 4%  -3.68% (p=0.004 n=6)
Planner/filter_cases.json-gen4-20            149.9m ± 0%   146.8m ± 0%  -2.04% (p=0.002 n=6)
Planner/large_cases.json-gen4-20             463.3µ ± 1%   461.6µ ± 1%       ~ (p=0.093 n=6)
Planner/aggr_cases.json-gen4-20              13.17m ± 1%   12.78m ± 1%  -2.96% (p=0.002 n=6)
Planner/select_cases.json-gen4-20            10.78m ± 1%   10.45m ± 2%  -3.09% (p=0.002 n=6)
Planner/union_cases.json-gen4-20             3.856m ± 0%   3.707m ± 1%  -3.87% (p=0.002 n=6)
geomean                                      8.098m        7.882m       -2.67%

                                  │ ../benchmarks/v0.txt │        ../benchmarks/v1.txt        │
                                  │         B/op         │     B/op      vs base              │
Planner/from_cases.json-gen4-20             4.566Mi ± 0%   4.405Mi ± 0%  -3.53% (p=0.002 n=6)
Planner/filter_cases.json-gen4-20           20.13Mi ± 0%   19.37Mi ± 0%  -3.77% (p=0.002 n=6)
Planner/large_cases.json-gen4-20            276.6Ki ± 0%   273.9Ki ± 0%  -0.97% (p=0.002 n=6)
Planner/aggr_cases.json-gen4-20             7.350Mi ± 0%   7.122Mi ± 0%  -3.09% (p=0.002 n=6)
Planner/select_cases.json-gen4-20           6.334Mi ± 0%   6.141Mi ± 0%  -3.04% (p=0.002 n=6)
Planner/union_cases.json-gen4-20            2.269Mi ± 0%   2.185Mi ± 0%  -3.69% (p=0.002 n=6)
geomean                                     3.713Mi        3.601Mi       -3.02%

                                  │ ../benchmarks/v0.txt │       ../benchmarks/v1.txt        │
                                  │      allocs/op       │  allocs/op   vs base              │
Planner/from_cases.json-gen4-20              107.9k ± 0%   101.9k ± 0%  -5.54% (p=0.002 n=6)
Planner/filter_cases.json-gen4-20            534.4k ± 0%   508.9k ± 0%  -4.77% (p=0.002 n=6)
Planner/large_cases.json-gen4-20             10.71k ± 0%   10.61k ± 0%  -0.92% (p=0.002 n=6)
Planner/aggr_cases.json-gen4-20              168.1k ± 0%   160.1k ± 0%  -4.77% (p=0.002 n=6)
Planner/select_cases.json-gen4-20            147.8k ± 0%   140.8k ± 0%  -4.77% (p=0.002 n=6)
Planner/union_cases.json-gen4-20             53.22k ± 0%   50.46k ± 0%  -5.20% (p=0.002 n=6)
geomean                                      96.68k        92.48k       -4.34%

Related Issue(s)

Checklist

• "Backport to:" labels have been added if this change should be back-ported to release branches
• If this change is to be back-ported to previous releases, a justification is included in the PR description
• Tests were added or are not required
• Did the new or modified tests pass consistently locally and on CI?
• Documentation was added or is not required

[vitess-bot]

Review Checklist

Hello reviewers! 👋 Please follow this checklist when reviewing this Pull Request.

General

• Ensure that the Pull Request has a descriptive title.
• Ensure there is a link to an issue (except for internal cleanup and flaky test fixes), new features should have an RFC that documents use cases and test cases.

Tests

• Bug fixes should have at least one unit or end-to-end test, enhancement and new features should have a sufficient number of tests.

Documentation

• Apply the release notes (needs details) label if users need to know about this change.
• New features should be documented.
• There should be some code comments as to why things are implemented the way they are.
• There should be a comment at the top of each new or modified test to explain what the test does.

New flags

• Is this flag really necessary?
• Flag names must be clear and intuitive, use dashes (-), and have a clear help text.

If a workflow is added or modified:

• Each item in Jobs should be named in order to mark it as required.
• If the workflow needs to be marked as required, the maintainer team must be notified.

Backward compatibility

• Protobuf changes should be wire-compatible.
• Changes to _vt tables and RPCs need to be backward compatible.
• RPC changes should be compatible with vitess-operator
• If a flag is removed, then it should also be removed from vitess-operator and arewefastyet, if used there.
• vtctl command output order should be stable and awk-able.

[vitess-bot]

Hello! 👋

This Pull Request is now handled by arewefastyet. The current HEAD and future commits will be benchmarked.

You can find the performance comparison on the arewefastyet website.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 94.28571% with 24 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 67.70%. Comparing base (44e46ed) to head (b3b79f1).
Report is 5 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
go/vt/sqlparser/normalizer.go	94.14%	24 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #17623      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   67.65%   67.70%   +0.05%     
==========================================
  Files        1586     1585       -1     
  Lines      255647   255592      -55     
==========================================
+ Hits       172954   173057     +103     
+ Misses      82693    82535     -158     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[GuptaManan100]

LGTM!