*: bypass order by clause for fast point get plan

[jackysp]

What problem does this PR solve?

Issue Number: close #49920

Problem Summary:

What changed and how does it work?

It's better to resolve order by clause, but it will make some duplicated code.

Check List

Tests

• Unit test
• Integration test
• Manual test (add detailed scripts or steps below)
• No need to test

  • I checked and no code files have been changed.

Side effects

• Performance regression: Consumes more CPU
• Performance regression: Consumes more Memory
• Breaking backward compatibility

Documentation

• Affects user behaviors
• Contains syntax changes
• Contains variable changes
• Contains experimental features
• Changes MySQL compatibility

Release note

Please refer to Release Notes Language Style Guide to write a quality release note.

None

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #50204 (dadca67) into master (095227d) will decrease coverage by 14.6136%.
The diff coverage is 100.0000%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@                Coverage Diff                @@
##             master     #50204         +/-   ##
=================================================
- Coverage   70.0083%   55.3948%   -14.6136%     
=================================================
  Files          1444       1555        +111     
  Lines        419997     586921     +166924     
=================================================
+ Hits         294033     325124      +31091     
- Misses       105634     239112     +133478     
- Partials      20330      22685       +2355     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration	36.5494% <100.0000%> (?)
unit	70.0026% <100.0000%> (-0.0058%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Components	Coverage Δ
dumpling	54.0269% <ø> (ø)
parser	∅ <ø> (∅)
br	55.4873% <ø> (+5.8174%)	⬆️

[hawkingrei]

/retest

[jackysp]

/retest

[ti-chi-bot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: qw4990, winoros

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [qw4990,winoros]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

[ti-chi-bot]

[LGTM Timeline notifier]

Timeline:

• 2024-01-11 18:44:29.065936267 +0000 UTC m=+555258.650189953: ☑️ agreed by winoros.
• 2024-01-12 06:17:02.212619654 +0000 UTC m=+596811.796873338: ☑️ agreed by qw4990.

[ti-chi-bot]

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch release-6.5: #50364.

[ti-chi-bot]

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch release-7.1: #50365.

[ti-chi-bot]

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch release-7.5: #50366.

[ti-chi-bot]

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch release-5.4: #50367.

[ti-chi-bot]

In response to a cherrypick label: new pull request created to branch release-6.1: #50368.

[you06]

This PR also fixed the invalid start TS.

/* init */ drop table if exists account;
-- init >> 0 rows affected
/* init */ create table account (id varchar(255) primary key, val varchar(255));
-- init >> 0 rows affected
/* t1 */ begin;
-- t1 >> 0 rows affected
/* t1 */ prepare stmt1 from 'select * from account where id = ? order by id limit 1 for update';
-- t1 >> 0 rows affected
/* t1 */ set @a = "a";
-- t1 >> 0 rows affected
/* t1 */ execute stmt1 using @a;
-- t1 >> 0 rows affected
/* t1 */ commit;
-- t1 >> 0 rows affected
/* t1 */ execute stmt1 using @a;
-- t1 >> E1105: try to commit with invalid txnStartTS: 18446744073709551615