IpFieldMapper should use IndexOrDocValuesQuery where possible

[harshavamsi]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
While going through the IpFieldMapper class and looking through IpFieldMapperType I noticed that the termQuery, termsQuery, and rangeQuery all use underlying lucene index queries. The documentation also incorrectly points to the fact that IP address do not have doc_values enabled by default. This is incorrect, ref:

OpenSearch/server/src/main/java/org/opensearch/index/mapper/IpFieldMapper.java

Line 89 in b78176a

private final Parameter<Boolean> hasDocValues = Parameter.docValuesParam(m -> toType(m).hasDocValues, true);

Describe the solution you'd like
Wrap all three queries in IndexOrDocValuesQuery and add checks to ensure that we return the index query if the field is only indexed and doc_values query if we only have doc_values enabled.

Describe alternatives you've considered
Alternative is to leave this as is. But there is potentially a lot of performance improvement to be had. Consider a query that looks like

{
  query: {
  "range":{
  "timestamp: {
      "from" :xyz,
       "to": xyz
    }
   },
"terms": {
"ipaddress" :["0.0.0.0", "1.1.1.1"]
}
}
}

We could let the range on the timestamp drive the query and use the doc_values to match the documents for the terms in the ipaddress.

Additional context
#7057

[hdhalter]

Hi @harshavamsi , will this require documentation for 2.12? If so, can you please create a doc issue, let me know who will be responsible for the doc PR, and add this to the unified tracker project? Thank you!

[kiranprakash154]

Hi, are we on track for this to be released in 2.12 ?

[getsaurabh02]

@reta Is there are reason we should move this to 3.0? Given the PR is already out by @vamshin we might be able to close it in before 2.12?

[reta]

@reta Is there are reason we should move this to 3.0? Given the PR is already out by @vamshin we might be able to close it in before 2.12?

Yeah, I think so, the issue is tagged to 2.12.0 (and 3.0.0 surely) :)

[hdhalter]

@reta Does this require documentation for 2.12?

[reta]

@reta Does this require documentation for 2.12?

I believe there are no user facing changes here