Rewrite PinotQuery based on expression hints at instance/segment level

[xiangfu0]

Description

Rewrite PinotQuery based on expression hints at segment level.

Split the query rewrite logic from Timestamp index: #8343

Upgrade Notes

Does this PR prevent a zero down-time upgrade? (Assume upgrade order: Controller, Broker, Server, Minion)

• Yes (Please label as backward-incompat, and complete the section below on Release Notes)

Does this PR fix a zero-downtime upgrade introduced earlier?

• Yes (Please label this as backward-incompat, and complete the section below on Release Notes)

Does this PR otherwise need attention when creating release notes? Things to consider:

• New configuration options
• Deprecation of configurations
• Signature changes to public methods/interfaces
• New plugins added or old plugins removed

• Yes (Please label this PR as release-notes and complete the section on Release Notes)

Release Notes

Rewrite PinotQuery based on Expression hints at segment level at Pinot Instance query executor.

Documentation

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #8451 (85dd906) into master (370d86c) will decrease coverage by 7.04%.
The diff coverage is 82.85%.

❗ Current head 85dd906 differs from pull request most recent head f2637f9. Consider uploading reports for the commit f2637f9 to get more accurate results

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master    #8451      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     70.63%   63.59%   -7.05%     
+ Complexity     4282     4198      -84     
============================================
  Files          1663     1652      -11     
  Lines         87305    86987     -318     
  Branches      13216    13189      -27     
============================================
- Hits          61671    55319    -6352     
- Misses        21350    27616    +6266     
+ Partials       4284     4052     -232     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration1	27.18% <35.71%> (+0.15%)	⬆️
integration2	26.10% <35.71%> (+0.25%)	⬆️
unittests1	67.04% <82.85%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
unittests2	?

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...ot/common/request/context/predicate/Predicate.java	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...pinot/core/plan/maker/InstancePlanMakerImplV2.java	74.82% <69.23%> (-2.18%)	⬇️
...ommon/request/context/predicate/BasePredicate.java	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
.../common/request/context/predicate/EqPredicate.java	61.53% <100.00%> (-5.13%)	⬇️
.../common/request/context/predicate/InPredicate.java	72.22% <100.00%> (-2.78%)	⬇️
.../request/context/predicate/IsNotNullPredicate.java	63.63% <100.00%> (-5.60%)	⬇️
...mon/request/context/predicate/IsNullPredicate.java	63.63% <100.00%> (-5.60%)	⬇️
.../request/context/predicate/JsonMatchPredicate.java	53.84% <100.00%> (-6.16%)	⬇️
...mmon/request/context/predicate/NotEqPredicate.java	61.53% <100.00%> (-5.13%)	⬇️
...mmon/request/context/predicate/NotInPredicate.java	72.22% <100.00%> (-2.78%)	⬇️
... and 234 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 370d86c...f2637f9. Read the comment docs.

[richardstartin]

👍🏻

[Jackie-Jiang]

LGTM otherwise