feat: Filter Pushdown Rule

[jurplel]

This PR brings a filter pushdown heuristic rule, built on @AveryQi115's hybrid scheme.

Filter Pushdown Rule

• This series of rules matches on any filter, and pushes any part of the filter down below a node if possible.
• They are registered in the HeuristicsRuleWrapper currently, but they work as cost-based rules as well.

Helper Functions

• LogOpExpr::new_flattened_nested_logical creates a new LogOpExpr from an ExprList, and it flattens any nested LogOpExprs of the same LogOpType.
• Expr::rewrite_column_refs recursively rewrites any ColumnExpr in an expression tree, using a provided rewrite_fn.
• LogicalJoin::map_through_join takes in left/right schema sizes, and maps an index to be as it would if it were pushed down to the left or right side of a join.
• LogicalProjection::compute_column_mapping creates a ColumnMapping object from a LogicalProjection.
  • The ColumnMapping object has a few methods, but most importantly it has rewrite_condition, which given an expr, will rewrite the expression with the projection's mapping.

Testing Utilities

• new_test_optimizer creates a new heuristic optimizer, which applies a given rule. It uses a TpchCatalog.
• TpchCatalog is a catalog implementing a couple of tables from the TPC-H schema. It can be extended to have more as needed.
• DummyCostModel implements a cost model, only giving zero cost. It is used for constructing a cascades optimizer without a real cost model, and isn't used in this PR.
• This pull request, using these test optimizer components, pioneers a new testing scheme, based on running a constructed query plan through an optimizer, rather than text-based SQL planner tests, which may be flaky. They also test rules in isolation.

[yliang412]

I was looking at Umbra's plan For Q7. Would it be helpful to push down hints for the (n1.n_name = 'FRANCE' AND n2.n_name = 'GERMANY') OR (n1.n_name = 'GERMANY' AND n2.n_name = 'FRANCE') predicate? You still need to keep the join, but you could push down FRANCE or GERMANY to both sides and reduce the number of things to look at.

TPC-H Q7:

SELECT
    supp_nation,
    cust_nation,
    l_year,
    SUM(volume) AS revenue
FROM
    (
        SELECT
            n1.n_name AS supp_nation,
            n2.n_name AS cust_nation,
            EXTRACT(YEAR FROM l_shipdate) AS l_year,
            l_extendedprice * (1 - l_discount) AS volume
        FROM
            supplier,
            lineitem,
            orders,
            customer,
            nation n1,
            nation n2
        WHERE
            s_suppkey = l_suppkey
            AND o_orderkey = l_orderkey
            AND c_custkey = o_custkey
            AND s_nationkey = n1.n_nationkey
            AND c_nationkey = n2.n_nationkey
            AND (
                (n1.n_name = 'FRANCE' AND n2.n_name = 'GERMANY')
                OR (n1.n_name = 'GERMANY' AND n2.n_name = 'FRANCE')
            )
            AND l_shipdate BETWEEN DATE '1995-01-01' AND DATE '1996-12-31'
    ) AS shipping
GROUP BY
    supp_nation,
    cust_nation,
    l_year
ORDER BY
    supp_nation,
    cust_nation,
    l_year;

[jurplel]

I was looking at Umbra's plan For Q7. Would it be helpful to push down hints for the (n1.n_name = 'FRANCE' AND n2.n_name = 'GERMANY') OR (n1.n_name = 'GERMANY' AND n2.n_name = 'FRANCE') predicate? You still need to keep the join, but you could push down FRANCE or GERMANY to both sides and reduce the number of things to look at.
...

This is a great example, but if you look at what Umbra is doing, this is actually a separate step from pushdown:
Unoptimized:

Expression Simplification:

If the filter were simplified to a conjunction first, then the filter pushdown implementation would be able to operate on the clauses independently. Dealing with an in expression with two columns is a separate issue, but I'm not sure optd would simplify the expression like that.

[yliang412]

I was looking at Umbra's plan For Q7. Would it be helpful to push down hints for the (n1.n_name = 'FRANCE' AND n2.n_name = 'GERMANY') OR (n1.n_name = 'GERMANY' AND n2.n_name = 'FRANCE') predicate? You still need to keep the join, but you could push down FRANCE or GERMANY to both sides and reduce the number of things to look at.
...

This is a great example, but if you look at what Umbra is doing, this is actually a separate step from pushdown: Unoptimized: Expression Simplification:

If the filter were simplified to a conjunction first, then the filter pushdown implementation would be able to operate on the clauses independently. Dealing with an in expression with two columns is a separate issue, but I'm not sure optd would simplify the expression like that.

Yep, I agree that this seems to be relevant to expression optimizations.

[Sweetsuro]

Left a couple comments that should probably be addressed

[yliang412]

Overall LGTM. Feel free to merge after addressing the comments (or do it in a separate PR)

[jurplel]

@Sweetsuro all comments finally addressed—approve and i will merge it!

[Sweetsuro]

LGTM! Maybe update the PR description before merging