[BugFix] Fix partition mv with self joins refresh bug (backport #45876)

[mergify]

Why I'm doing:

• If mv contains multiple times for the same table, result may be wrong because of wrong partition pruning.

CREATE TABLE `t1` (
  `k1` int(11) NULL COMMENT "",
  `k2` decimal(38, 8) NULL COMMENT "",
  `k3` decimal(38, 8) NULL COMMENT "",
  `dt`  DATE  NULL COMMENT ""
) 
DUPLICATE KEY(`k1`)
PARTITION BY RANGE (dt) (
    START ("2023-12-31") END ("2025-01-01") EVERY (INTERVAL 1 DAY)
)
DISTRIBUTED BY HASH(`k1`) BUCKETS 3;

CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW  test_mv1
PARTITION BY dt
DISTRIBUTED BY HASH(`k1`) BUCKETS 1
PROPERTIES (
"replication_num" = "1",
"partition_refresh_number"="-1"
) REFRESH deferred MANUAL as
select k1,k3,dt from t1;

CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW test_mv2
PARTITION BY dt
DISTRIBUTED BY HASH(`k1`) BUCKETS 1
PROPERTIES (
"replication_num" = "1",
"partition_refresh_number"="-1"
) REFRESH MANUAL as
select t1.k1, t1.k3 t1k3, t4.k3 k4k3, t1.k3-t4.k3 as upyear, t1.dt dt 
from t1 left outer join test_mv1 t4 
on t1.k1=t4.k1 and t4.dt=substr(date_sub(t1.dt,interval dayofyear(t1.dt) day),1,10);

What I'm doing:

• Only push down partition predicate below the table when there are no same tables in mv's defined query.
• Partition predicate is only added into mv's defined query if it cannot be pushed below scan node.

Fixes #issue

What type of PR is this:

• BugFix
• Feature
• Enhancement
• Refactor
• UT
• Doc
• Tool

Does this PR entail a change in behavior?

• Yes, this PR will result in a change in behavior.
• No, this PR will not result in a change in behavior.

If yes, please specify the type of change:

• Interface/UI changes: syntax, type conversion, expression evaluation, display information
• Parameter changes: default values, similar parameters but with different default values
• Policy changes: use new policy to replace old one, functionality automatically enabled
• Feature removed
• Miscellaneous: upgrade & downgrade compatibility, etc.

Checklist:

• I have added test cases for my bug fix or my new feature
• This pr needs user documentation (for new or modified features or behaviors)
  • I have added documentation for my new feature or new function
• This is a backport pr

Bugfix cherry-pick branch check:

• I have checked the version labels which the pr will be auto-backported to the target branch
  • 3.3
  • 3.2
  • 3.1
  • 3.0
  • 2.5

---

This is an automatic backport of pull request #45876 done by [Mergify](https://mergify.com). ## Why I'm doing: - If mv contains multiple times for the same table, result may be wrong because of wrong partition pruning. ``` CREATE TABLE `t1` ( `k1` int(11) NULL COMMENT "", `k2` decimal(38, 8) NULL COMMENT "", `k3` decimal(38, 8) NULL COMMENT "", `dt` DATE NULL COMMENT "" ) DUPLICATE KEY(`k1`) PARTITION BY RANGE (dt) ( START ("2023-12-31") END ("2025-01-01") EVERY (INTERVAL 1 DAY) ) DISTRIBUTED BY HASH(`k1`) BUCKETS 3;

CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW test_mv1
PARTITION BY dt
DISTRIBUTED BY HASH(k1) BUCKETS 1
PROPERTIES (
"replication_num" = "1",
"partition_refresh_number"="-1"
) REFRESH deferred MANUAL as
select k1,k3,dt from t1;

CREATE MATERIALIZED VIEW test_mv2
PARTITION BY dt
DISTRIBUTED BY HASH(k1) BUCKETS 1
PROPERTIES (
"replication_num" = "1",
"partition_refresh_number"="-1"
) REFRESH MANUAL as
select t1.k1, t1.k3 t1k3, t4.k3 k4k3, t1.k3-t4.k3 as upyear, t1.dt dt
from t1 left outer join test_mv1 t4
on t1.k1=t4.k1 and t4.dt=substr(date_sub(t1.dt,interval dayofyear(t1.dt) day),1,10);

## What I'm doing:
- Only push down partition predicate below the table when there are no same tables in mv's defined query.
- Partition predicate is only added into mv's defined query if it cannot be pushed below scan node.

Fixes #issue

## What type of PR is this:

- [x] BugFix
- [ ] Feature
- [ ] Enhancement
- [ ] Refactor
- [ ] UT
- [ ] Doc
- [ ] Tool

Does this PR entail a change in behavior?

- [ ] Yes, this PR will result in a change in behavior.
- [x] No, this PR will not result in a change in behavior.

If yes, please specify the type of change:

- [ ] Interface/UI changes: syntax, type conversion, expression evaluation, display information
- [ ] Parameter changes: default values, similar parameters but with different default values
- [ ] Policy changes: use new policy to replace old one, functionality automatically enabled
- [ ] Feature removed
- [ ] Miscellaneous: upgrade & downgrade compatibility, etc.

## Checklist:

- [x] I have added test cases for my bug fix or my new feature
- [ ] This pr needs user documentation (for new or modified features or behaviors)
  - [ ] I have added documentation for my new feature or new function
- [x] This is a backport pr

[mergify]

Cherry-pick of ec7dd64 has failed:

On branch mergify/bp/branch-3.1/pr-45876
Your branch is up to date with 'origin/branch-3.1'.

You are currently cherry-picking commit ec7dd64d49.
  (fix conflicts and run "git cherry-pick --continue")
  (use "git cherry-pick --skip" to skip this patch)
  (use "git cherry-pick --abort" to cancel the cherry-pick operation)

Changes to be committed:
	new file:   fe/fe-core/src/main/java/com/starrocks/scheduler/mv/MVPCTRefreshPlanBuilder.java
	new file:   fe/fe-core/src/test/java/com/starrocks/scheduler/PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessorOlapPart2Test.java
	new file:   test/sql/test_materialized_view_refresh/R/test_mv_refresh_with_the_same_tables
	new file:   test/sql/test_materialized_view_refresh/T/test_mv_refresh_with_the_same_tables

Unmerged paths:
  (use "git add/rm <file>..." as appropriate to mark resolution)
	both modified:   fe/fe-core/src/main/java/com/starrocks/scheduler/PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessor.java
	both modified:   fe/fe-core/src/main/java/com/starrocks/sql/optimizer/rule/transformation/materialization/MvUtils.java
	deleted by us:   fe/fe-core/src/test/java/com/starrocks/scheduler/PartitionBasedMvRefreshProcessorOlapTest.java

To fix up this pull request, you can check it out locally. See documentation: https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests/reviewing-changes-in-pull-requests/checking-out-pull-requests-locally

[mergify]

@mergify[bot]: Backport conflict, please reslove the conflict and resubmit the pr

[sonarcloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
47 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud