Support runend canonicalization for lists

[danking]

Summary

• add list dtype support in run_end_canonicalize via run index expansion and the existing take path
• cover list(i64), list(bool), and list(utf8) run-end canonicalization

Tests

• cargo test -p vortex-runend test_runend_list -- --nocapture
• cargo test -p vortex-runend
• cargo clippy -p vortex-runend --all-targets --all-features
• cargo +nightly fmt --all

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will degrade performance by 0.76%

⚠️ Unknown Walltime execution environment detected

Using the Walltime instrument on standard Hosted Runners will lead to inconsistent data.

For the most accurate results, we recommend using CodSpeed Macro Runners: bare-metal machines fine-tuned for performance measurement consistency.

⚠️ Different runtime environments detected

Some benchmarks with significant performance changes were compared across different runtime environments,
which may affect the accuracy of the results.

Open the report in CodSpeed to investigate

⚡ 4 improved benchmarks
❌ 3 regressed benchmarks
✅ 2083 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 206 skipped benchmarks¹
🗄️ 4 archived benchmarks run²

Warning

Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

Performance Changes

	Mode	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
❌	WallTime	arrow_checked_add_u32_neon[16384]	12.4 µs	20.3 µs	-38.88%
❌	Simulation	cached_indices_i128[0.01]	48 µs	61.7 µs	-22.14%
❌	Simulation	compress_fsst[(500, 64, 8)]	482.1 µs	536.2 µs	-10.09%
⚡	Simulation	cached_indices_i32[0.01]	51.6 µs	37.5 µs	+37.36%
⚡	WallTime	arrow_checked_add_u32_avx512[16384]	21.3 µs	17.7 µs	+20.51%
⚡	WallTime	arrow_checked_add_u32_avx2[16384]	21.3 µs	17.7 µs	+20.13%
⚡	WallTime	mul_u32_nonnull_avx512	6.4 µs	5.8 µs	+11.42%

Tip

Investigate this regression by commenting @codspeedbot fix this regression on this PR, or directly use the CodSpeed MCP with your agent.

---

_{Comparing dk/runend-list-canonicalize (692c7e6) with develop (97953be)³}

Footnotes

1. 206 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. ↩

2. 4 benchmarks were run, but are now archived. If they were deleted in another branch, consider rebasing to remove them from the report. Instead if they were added back, click here to restore them. ↩

3. No successful run was found on develop (a67cd1b) during the generation of this report, so 97953be was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩

[joseph-isaacs]

i guess you could leave the validity as a run end array?

[danking]

@joseph-isaacs I actually wanted to ask you about that!

Would it be copacetic to simply recreate three RunEndArray's for the offsets, the sizes, and the validity? Or is that not what this method is supposed to do?

[joseph-isaacs]

I wonder if its worth fusing these two decode, seem like it will be much faster?