chore: Swap ByteBuffer for BufferHandle more

[a10y]

No description provided.

[a10y]

It looks like BoolArray is not preferred for GPU, see e.g. cudf

But we have ByteBool here

[codspeed-hq]

CodSpeed Performance Report

Merging this PR will degrade performance by 78.85%

_{Comparing aduffy/bufferhandle-more (db398b5) with develop (42b43eb)}

⚠️ 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.

Summary

⚡ 3 improved benchmarks
❌ 9 regressed benchmarks
✅ 1262 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 1254 skipped benchmarks¹

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

Performance Changes

	Mode	Benchmark	BASE	HEAD	Efficiency
❌	WallTime	u16_FoR[100K]	6.8 µs	9.8 µs	-30.28%
❌	WallTime	u16_FoR[10K]	6.2 µs	29.5 µs	-78.85%
⚡	WallTime	u64_FoR[10K]	12.9 µs	8 µs	+61.25%
❌	WallTime	u8_FoR[100K]	5.9 µs	22.3 µs	-73.48%
❌	WallTime	u16_FoR[10M]	7 µs	10.9 µs	-35.62%
❌	WallTime	u8_FoR[1K]	5.9 µs	7.1 µs	-16.58%
❌	Simulation	canonical_into_non_nullable[(10000, 1, 0.1)]	51.8 µs	60.2 µs	-13.92%
❌	Simulation	canonical_into_non_nullable[(10000, 1, 0.0)]	30.5 µs	39 µs	-21.79%
❌	Simulation	canonical_into_non_nullable[(10000, 1, 0.01)]	35.8 µs	44.2 µs	-19.03%
❌	Simulation	canonical_into_nullable[(10000, 100, 0.0)]	4.1 ms	5.1 ms	-19.94%
⚡	Simulation	into_canonical_nullable[(10000, 10, 0.0)]	537.1 µs	452.3 µs	+18.74%
⚡	Simulation	into_canonical_nullable[(10000, 10, 0.1)]	709.6 µs	632.3 µs	+12.23%

Footnotes

1. 1254 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. ↩

[gatesn]

Arrow also has a 1-byte boolean extension. I did wonder whether byte bools would be preferred on GPU since bit unpacking would be madness. We had the same conclusion for pipelined CPU code too in fact. 🤷

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 75.00000% with 23 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 82.86%. Comparing base (4bbafe7) to head (9ab0eee).
⚠️ Report is 12 commits behind head on develop.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
vortex-array/src/arrays/decimal/array.rs	70.00%	15 Missing ⚠️
vortex-array/src/arrays/decimal/vtable/mod.rs	33.33%	4 Missing ⚠️
vortex-array/src/buffer.rs	50.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
encodings/bytebool/src/array.rs	87.50%	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.