[Enhancement](mv-rewrite) Replace naive set-containment residual

[foxtail463]

compensation with DNF implication

The old residual compensation simply checks whether the query residual set contains all view residual predicates. This breaks on real-world MV rewrites where query and view residuals are structurally different but logically implicative -- e.g. query residual
A OR (B AND C)
vs view residual
A OR B
The old code sees two different expression trees and bails out, even though the query side is strictly stronger.

This patch introduces DNF-based implication checking (impliesByDnf) to replace the set-containment approach, so compensation succeeds whenever the query candidates logically imply the view residual regardless of structural differences. A hard cap (MAX_DNF_BRANCHES=1024) guards against exponential expansion; when the proof is too expensive the compensation fails conservatively rather than hanging the optimizer.

The three separate compensate calls in AbstractMaterializedViewRule are collapsed into a single Predicates.compensatePredicates entry point that encapsulates candidate collection and residual finalization.

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: close #xxx

Related PR: #xxx

Problem Summary:

Release note

None

Check List (For Author)

• Test

  • Regression test
  • Unit Test
  • Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
  • No need to test or manual test. Explain why:
    • This is a refactor/code format and no logic has been changed.
    • Previous test can cover this change.
    • No code files have been changed.
    • Other reason

• Behavior changed:

  • No.
  • Yes.

• Does this need documentation?

  • No.
  • Yes.

Check List (For Reviewer who merge this PR)

• Confirm the release note
• Confirm test cases
• Confirm document
• Add branch pick label

[hello-stephen]

Thank you for your contribution to Apache Doris.
Don't know what should be done next? See How to process your PR.

Please clearly describe your PR:

1. What problem was fixed (it's best to include specific error reporting information). How it was fixed.
2. Which behaviors were modified. What was the previous behavior, what is it now, why was it modified, and what possible impacts might there be.
3. What features were added. Why was this function added?
4. Which code was refactored and why was this part of the code refactored?
5. Which functions were optimized and what is the difference before and after the optimization?