chore[array]: fill_null cleanup + decimal impl

[joseph-isaacs]

clean up fill null
add decimal fill null

[codspeed-hq]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging #5175 will degrade performances by 33.13%

_{Comparing ji/fill-null-cleanup (091df87) with develop (69ef61d)¹}

Summary

⚡ 75 improvements
❌ 33 regressions
✅ 1210 untouched
🆕 7 new
⏩ 127 skipped²

⚠️ Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Benchmarks breakdown

	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Change
❌	decompress_rd[f64, 10000]	141 µs	157.9 µs	-10.69%
⚡	chunked_dict_primitive_canonical_into[f32, (1000, 10, 10)]	99.9 µs	90.7 µs	+10.16%
⚡	chunked_dict_primitive_canonical_into[f32, (1000, 10, 100)]	778.9 µs	697.3 µs	+11.7%
⚡	chunked_dict_primitive_canonical_into[f32, (1000, 100, 100)]	794.9 µs	714 µs	+11.32%
⚡	chunked_dict_primitive_canonical_into[u32, (1000, 10, 10)]	100.7 µs	90.9 µs	+10.81%
⚡	chunked_dict_primitive_canonical_into[u32, (1000, 10, 100)]	803.1 µs	720.1 µs	+11.52%
⚡	chunked_dict_primitive_canonical_into[u32, (1000, 100, 10)]	102.4 µs	92.6 µs	+10.6%
⚡	chunked_dict_primitive_canonical_into[u32, (1000, 100, 100)]	807.4 µs	724.7 µs	+11.42%
⚡	chunked_dict_primitive_into_canonical[f32, (1000, 10, 10)]	100.8 µs	91.4 µs	+10.22%
⚡	chunked_dict_primitive_into_canonical[f32, (1000, 10, 100)]	799.6 µs	720.1 µs	+11.04%
⚡	chunked_dict_primitive_into_canonical[f32, (1000, 100, 10)]	102 µs	92.6 µs	+10.1%
⚡	chunked_dict_primitive_into_canonical[f32, (1000, 100, 100)]	816.1 µs	736.5 µs	+10.81%
⚡	chunked_dict_primitive_into_canonical[u32, (1000, 10, 10)]	101.6 µs	91.8 µs	+10.75%
⚡	chunked_dict_primitive_into_canonical[u32, (1000, 10, 100)]	807.7 µs	721.9 µs	+11.89%
⚡	chunked_dict_primitive_into_canonical[u32, (1000, 100, 10)]	106.1 µs	96.4 µs	+10.01%
⚡	chunked_dict_primitive_into_canonical[u32, (1000, 100, 100)]	823.2 µs	737.8 µs	+11.57%
⚡	decode_primitives[f32, (1000, 128)]	25.6 µs	23 µs	+11.31%
⚡	decode_primitives[f32, (1000, 2)]	25.7 µs	23.1 µs	+11.23%
⚡	decode_primitives[f32, (1000, 32)]	25.3 µs	22.7 µs	+11.46%
⚡	decode_primitives[f32, (1000, 4)]	25.7 µs	23.1 µs	+11.25%
...	...	...	...	...

ℹ️ Only the first 20 benchmarks are displayed. Go to the app to view all benchmarks.

Footnotes

1. No successful run was found on develop (8ca7f69) during the generation of this report, so 69ef61d was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩

2. 127 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩

[robert3005]

This should operate on Mask instead of validity.

[joseph-isaacs]

Why we have a validity and would have to materialise a mask?

[robert3005]

My thinking is that the mask is the you do the compute over. However, since you immediately take the buffer I think this should be fine

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 87.00000% with 13 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 84.88%. Comparing base (69ef61d) to head (091df87).
⚠️ Report is 25 commits behind head on develop.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...rtex-array/src/arrays/decimal/compute/fill_null.rs	86.41%	11 Missing ⚠️
vortex-array/src/arrays/bool/compute/fill_null.rs	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
...ex-array/src/arrays/primitive/compute/fill_null.rs	66.66%	1 Missing ⚠️

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.