feat: Only initialize BusinessCalendar caches when data is accessed and improve caching performance

[chipkent]

Makes BusinessCalendar caches populate only when accessed to avoid slow worker initialization. Additionally, caching in various operations has been improved to yield better performance.

Resolves #5377

Benchmark:

n = 1_000_000
npart = 10
t = emptyTable(n)
        .updateView("Part = ii%npart", "Today = todayLocalDate()")

tp = t.partitionBy("Part").proxy()

c = calendar()

timeit = { name, table, query ->
    c.clearCache()
    start = System.currentTimeMillis()
    rst = table.update(query)
    end = System.currentTimeMillis()
    println("TIME: ${name}: ${end-start} ms")
}

istart = parseInstant("2022-01-01T01:01:01 ET")
iend = parseInstant("2024-06-01T01:01:01 ET")

timeit("calendarDayOld-NORMAL", t, "CD = c.calendarDay(Today)")
timeit("calendarDayOld-PART", tp, "CD = c.calendarDay(Today)")

timeit("diffBusinessYearsOld-NORMAL", t, "CD = c.diffBusinessYears(istart, iend)")
timeit("diffBusinessYearsOld-PART", tp, "CD = c.diffBusinessYears(istart, iend)")

println("DONE")

Performance:

// 1M - NEW
//TIME: calendarDayOld-NORMAL: 266 ms
//TIME: calendarDayOld-PART: 299 ms
//TIME: diffBusinessYearsOld-NORMAL: 5937 ms
//TIME: diffBusinessYearsOld-PART: 6664 ms <<<<

// 1M - v0.33.3
//TIME: calendarDayOld-NORMAL: 366 ms
//TIME: calendarDayOld-PART: 327 ms
//TIME: diffBusinessYearsOld-NORMAL: 20384 ms
//TIME: diffBusinessYearsOld-PART: 5549 ms <<<<

// 10M - NEW
//TIME: calendarDayOld-NORMAL: 449 ms
//TIME: calendarDayOld-PART: 548 ms
//TIME: diffBusinessYearsOld-NORMAL: 58883 ms
//TIME: diffBusinessYearsOld-PART: 67362 ms <<<<

// 10M - v0.33.3
//TIME: calendarDayOld-NORMAL: 522 ms
//TIME: calendarDayOld-PART: 704 ms
//TIME: diffBusinessYearsOld-NORMAL: 195916 ms
//TIME: diffBusinessYearsOld-PART: 49411 ms <<<<

Note1: v0.33.0 times do not include initialization times, but the new values do.
Note2: There appears to be contention or initialization overhead in the partitioned table case yielding slightly worse performance.

[jjbrosnan]

I don't have any specific comments on the code. I was unable to break things when testing this locally. I tested against docs CI, and ran my own tests locally with no issues.

[devinrsmith]

Also see #5378 (comment)

[rcaudy]

Some trivial comments.

[rcaudy]

Reviewed enough, has great test coverage.