Delegate to datafusion's FilePruner to know if it has any work to do

[AdamGS]

Summary

We currently effectively duplicate a bunch of work that now happens within FilePruner, so this change just saves on that, letting it decide if it has any value.

[codspeed-hq]

Merging this PR will degrade performance by 3.1%

⚠️ 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
❌ 4 regressed benchmarks
✅ 2189 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 218 skipped benchmarks¹

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]	13.3 µs	20.4 µs	-34.62%
❌	Simulation	random_i8[0.5]	67.8 µs	91.4 µs	-25.83%
❌	Simulation	decompress[u64, (4000, 1024)]	71.8 µs	87.2 µs	-17.63%
❌	WallTime	mul_i32_nonnull_avx512	7.1 µs	7.8 µs	-10.05%
⚡	WallTime	dict_canonicalize_gt_u8_avx2[16000000]	11.1 ms	8.2 ms	+35.71%
⚡	Simulation	random_i16[0.95]	95.6 µs	77.5 µs	+23.39%
⚡	WallTime	words_gather_scalar_avx2[65536]	9.4 µs	8.2 µs	+13.84%
⚡	Simulation	allocate_drop_arrow[0]	456.9 ns	402.7 ns	+13.45%

Tip

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

---

_{Comparing adamg/df-per-chunk-improvement (4b82444) with develop (f9093df)²}

Footnotes

1. 218 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. No successful run was found on develop (d1fe2dc) during the generation of this report, so f9093df was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩