Speedup interleave_views (4-7x faster)

[Dandandan]

Which issue does this PR close?

Closes: #7688

Rationale for this change

interleave_views is really slow - taking up ~25% of the samples in SortPreservingMergeExec

We can make it faster.

Details

interleave str_view(0.0) 100 [0..100, 100..230, 450..1000]
                        time:   [369.33 ns 371.42 ns 374.48 ns]
                        change: [−77.355% −77.199% −77.051%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
                        Performance has improved.
Found 4 outliers among 100 measurements (4.00%)
  1 (1.00%) low mild
  3 (3.00%) high severe

interleave str_view(0.0) 400 [0..100, 100..230, 450..1000]
                        time:   [932.11 ns 937.68 ns 945.43 ns]
                        change: [−84.672% −84.528% −84.382%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
                        Performance has improved.
Found 7 outliers among 100 measurements (7.00%)
  3 (3.00%) high mild
  4 (4.00%) high severe

interleave str_view(0.0) 1024 [0..100, 100..230, 450..1000]
                        time:   [2.0938 µs 2.1058 µs 2.1235 µs]
                        change: [−86.449% −86.310% −86.167%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
                        Performance has improved.
Found 3 outliers among 100 measurements (3.00%)
  1 (1.00%) high mild
  2 (2.00%) high severe

interleave str_view(0.0) 1024 [0..100, 100..230, 450..1000, 0..1000]
                        time:   [2.2045 µs 2.2098 µs 2.2170 µs]
                        change: [−84.595% −84.493% −84.401%] (p = 0.00 < 0.05)
                        Performance has improved.
Found 3 outliers among 100 measurements (3.00%)
  1 (1.00%) low mild
  1 (1.00%) high mild
  1 (1.00%) high severe

What changes are included in this PR?

Are there any user-facing changes?

[alamb]

This makes a lot of sense to me -- thank you @Dandandan

[mbutrovich]

Was the change to parquet-testing submodule intended?

[Dandandan]

Was the change to parquet-testing submodule intended?

Thanks - fixed

[alamb]

🥳