perf: do not match each token in aggregation

[dkharms]

Description

When getting tokens for aggregation, we scan each token and checking it against * -- so basically, useless computations and IO (we have to load+unpack token blocks). I suggest to return range [firstTID; lastTID].

Obviously, this optimization will have more impact on high-cardinality fields that span over several token blocks (like remote_addr or something).

I will collect better measurements but for cold queries (flushed userspace cache and page cache) I got following results:

# query: * | group by (remote_addr) | count

# Before (restart seq-db, flush page cache)
% hyperfine -r=1 'curl --json @search.json http://localhost:9002/complex-search'
Benchmark 1: curl --json @search.json http://localhost:9002/complex-search
  Time (abs ≡):         2.561 s               [User: 0.003 s, System: 0.010 s]

% hyperfine -r=10 'curl --json @search.json http://localhost:9002/complex-search'
Benchmark 1: curl --json @search.json http://localhost:9002/complex-search
  Time (mean ± σ):      1.222 s ±  0.046 s    [User: 0.004 s, System: 0.006 s]
  Range (min … max):    1.163 s …  1.279 s    10 runs

# After (restart seq-db, flush page cache)
% hyperfine -r=1 'curl --json @search.json http://localhost:9002/complex-search'
Benchmark 1: curl --json @search.json http://localhost:9002/complex-search
  Time (abs ≡):         1.440 s               [User: 0.003 s, System: 0.010 s]

% hyperfine -r=10 'curl --json @search.json http://localhost:9002/complex-search'
Benchmark 1: curl --json @search.json http://localhost:9002/complex-search
  Time (mean ± σ):      1.208 s ±  0.051 s    [User: 0.004 s, System: 0.006 s]
  Range (min … max):    1.128 s …  1.277 s    10 runs

---

• I have read and followed all requirements in CONTRIBUTING.md;
• I used LLM/AI assistance to make this pull request;

If you have used LLM/AI assistance please provide model name and full prompt:

Model: {{model-name}}
Prompt: {{prompt}}

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 93.75000% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 71.11%. Comparing base (9506076) to head (1651f58).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
frac/processor/eval_tree.go	66.66%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #474      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   70.68%   71.11%   +0.43%     
==========================================
  Files         233      232       -1     
  Lines       18399    18417      +18     
==========================================
+ Hits        13005    13098      +93     
+ Misses       4416     4339      -77     
- Partials      978      980       +2     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 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.

[github-actions]

🔴 Performance Degradation

Some benchmarks have degraded compared to the previous run.
Click on Show table button to see full list of degraded benchmarks.

Show table

Name	Previous	Current	Ratio	Verdict
Indexer-4	4ad8f1	900dcf
	677543019.00 B/op	771867370.00 B/op	1.14	🔴

[seqbenchbot]

Nice, @dkharms <(-^,^-)=b!

Started benchmark cf3cffd6:

• scenario bulk;
• against main;
• running for 5m0s;

I'll post the statistics here once it finishes.
To end it early, run @seqbenchbot stop cf3cffd6.

Here is a list of helpful links:

• Take a look at Grafana dashboard;
• Live-tailing logs are also available;

Have a great time!

[seqbenchbot]

Nice, @dkharms <(-^,^-)=b!

Benchmark cf3cffd6 (scenario bulk) has finished.
I've prepared a summary for you. Click on Show summary button to see it:

Show summary

Query	Type	mean (ms)	stddev (ms)	p(50) (ms)	p(95) (ms)	p(99) (ms)	iterations
bulk	warm	27.23	7.76	25.00	41.00	58.00	10785.00

Compare it against another run with @seqbenchbot compare cf3cffd6 <other-id>.

[dkharms]

@seqbenchbot compare 41da199f cf3cffd6

[seqbenchbot]

Nice, @dkharms <(-^,^-)=b!

Comparison of baseline 41da199f against comparison cf3cffd6:

Show comparison

Query	Type	mean (ms)			stddev (ms)			p(50) (ms)			p(95) (ms)			p(99) (ms)			iterations
		base	comp	diff	base	comp	diff	base	comp	diff	base	comp	diff	base	comp	diff	base	comp	diff
bulk	warm	27.13	27.23	+0.37%	7.72	7.76	+0.40%	25.00	25.00	0.00%	40.00	41.00	+2.50%	58.00	58.00	0.00%	10785.00	10785.00	0.00%

See both runs overlaid (baseline aligned to comparison) on the Grafana dashboard.

Have a great time!

[dkharms]

@seqbenchbot start bulk 0-skip-matching --duration=5m

[seqbenchbot]

Nice, @dkharms <(-^,^-)=b!

Started benchmark 4818607c:

• scenario bulk;
• against 0-skip-matching;
• running for 5m0s;

I'll post the statistics here once it finishes.
To end it early, run @seqbenchbot stop 4818607c.

Here is a list of helpful links:

• Take a look at Grafana dashboard;
• Live-tailing logs are also available;

Have a great time!

[seqbenchbot]

Nice, @dkharms <(-^,^-)=b!

Benchmark 4818607c (scenario bulk) has finished.
I've prepared a summary for you. Click on Show summary button to see it:

Show summary

Query	Type	mean (ms)	stddev (ms)	p(50) (ms)	p(95) (ms)	p(99) (ms)	iterations
bulk	warm	27.16	7.65	25.00	40.00	58.00	10785.00

Compare it against another run with @seqbenchbot compare 4818607c <other-id>.