Implement Specialized GroupColumn for Date/Time/Timestamp types for multi-column GROUP BY

[alamb]

Is your feature request related to a problem or challenge?

In #12269 @jayzhan211 made significant improvements to how group values are stored in multi-column aggregations.

Specifically for queries like

SELECT ... FROM ... GROUP BY col1, ... colN

The improvement relies on implementing specialized versions of GroupColumn for the types of col1, colN

We have implemented the primitive types and Strings/StringViews now, but we have not implemented all types

This means queries like

SELECT ... FROM ... GROUP BY int_col, date_col

Will fall back to the slower (but general) GroupValuesRows:

datafusion/datafusion/physical-plan/src/aggregates/group_values/row.rs

Lines 40 to 41 in a6586cc

	/// representation.
	pub struct GroupValuesRows {

Describe the solution you'd like

Implement GroupColumn for all primitive types.

You can see how to do this here:

datafusion/datafusion/physical-plan/src/aggregates/group_values/mod.rs

Lines 117 to 121 in e4bd579

	macro_rules! downcast_helper {
	($t:ty, $d:ident) => {
	return Ok(Box::new(GroupValuesPrimitive::<$t>::new($d.clone())))
	};
	}

and the make sure there are tests for each of those types in queries that group on multiple columns

Describe alternatives you've considered

No response

Additional context

Here is an example for how this was done for Strings: #12809

[buraksenn]

I plan to wrap up nth_value PR today thanks to @jcsherin's reviews, then start on this one if it is okay. Otherwise, I can drop this

[buraksenn]

take

[jonathanc-n]

I might also be working on an implementation for this alongside if that is fine?

[jonathanc-n]

Another thing, should this be done before or after #13262? I'm thinking after, just to reduce overall work.

[alamb]

Another thing, should this be done before or after #13262? I'm thinking after, just to reduce overall work.

I agree after would be good -- I am hoping that #13262 can be quickly banged out / merged.

However, I think most of the work for this PR will be testing (the actual code is likely not all that much) so that might be good to get ready as well

[jonathanc-n]

@buraksenn Will you be working on this? if not, I would like to try working on this.

[buraksenn]

@buraksenn Will you be working on this? if not, I would like to try working on this.

I was waiting #13262 PR but from that PR I see that you've more knowledge on this topic so I don't want to block this :D. Feel free to work if you've time. I'm dropping this issue I can take a look if you cant find time

[jonathanc-n]

take