TPC-DS 54 with dynamic filter slow due to inefficient plan

I'm using datafusion `50.1.0` with dynamic filter pushdown enabled. The following query is a small section of TPC-DS q54. I noticed a large slow down, and noticed in explain analyze that `web_sales` was scanned completely. The plans and the explain analyze of the scan are [here](https://gist.github.com/Mark1626/c7e54ce3c3dd5d77dac825ee3f072ab7)

```sql
select
i_item_id item_id,
sum(ws_ext_sales_price) ws_item_rev
from
web_sales,
item,
date_dim
where
ws_item_sk = i_item_sk
and d_date in (
select
d_date
from
date_dim
where
d_week_seq =(
select
d_week_seq
from
date_dim
where
d_date = '1998-02-19'
)
)
and ws_sold_date_sk = d_date_sk
group by
i_item_id
```

Dynamic filter

```
predicate=DynamicFilterPhysicalExpr [ ws_item_sk@0 >= 1 AND ws_item_sk@0 <= 54000 ] AND DynamicFilterPhysicalExpr [ ws_sold_date_sk@2 >= 2415022 AND ws_sold_date_sk@2 <= 2488070 ],
```

Explain Analyze
```
metrics=[output_rows=3598645, elapsed_compute=14ns, batches_split=0, bytes_scanned=0, file_open_errors=0, file_scan_errors=0, files_ranges_pruned_statistics=0, num_predicate_creation_errors=0, page_index_rows_matched=0, page_index_rows_pruned=0, predicate_evaluation_errors=0, pushdown_rows_matched=7197290, pushdown_rows_pruned=858, row_groups_matched_bloom_filter=0, row_groups_matched_statistics=1800, row_groups_pruned_bloom_filter=0, row_groups_pruned_statistics=0, bloom_filter_eval_time=41.140467ms, metadata_load_time=356.618768ms, page_index_eval_time=205.72µs, row_pushdown_eval_time=284.704072ms, statistics_eval_time=40.716318ms, time_elapsed_opening=52.71329ms, time_elapsed_processing=2.034425262s, time_elapsed_scanning_total=9.825828938s, time_elapsed_scanning_until_data=6.676775892s]
```

Same query simplified is much faster

```
select
i_item_id item_id,
sum(ws_ext_sales_price) ws_item_rev
from
web_sales,
item,
date_dim
where
ws_item_sk = i_item_sk
and d_date in (
'1998-02-17', '1998-02-18', '1998-02-19', '1998-02-20', '1998-02-21', '1998-02-22', '1998-02-23'
)
and ws_sold_date_sk = d_date_sk
group by
i_item_id;
```

Dynamic filter

A much smaller range is used now

```
predicate=DynamicFilterPhysicalExpr [ ws_item_sk@0 >= 1 AND ws_item_sk@0 <= 54000 ] AND DynamicFilterPhysicalExpr [ ws_sold_date_sk@2 >= 2450862 AND ws_sold_date_sk@2 <= 2450868 ],
```

Explain Analyze

Shows a lot less output rows as more rows pruned

```
metrics=[output_rows=7880, elapsed_compute=14ns, batches_split=0, bytes_scanned=0, file_open_errors=0, file_scan_errors=0, files_ranges_pruned_statistics=1829, num_predicate_creation_errors=0, page_index_rows_matched=0, page_index_rows_pruned=0, predicate_evaluation_errors=0, pushdown_rows_matched=15760, pushdown_rows_pruned=858, row_groups_matched_bloom_filter=0, row_groups_matched_statistics=2, row_groups_pruned_bloom_filter=0, row_groups_pruned_statistics=0, bloom_filter_eval_time=44.38µs, metadata_load_time=931.791µs, page_index_eval_time=4.667µs, row_pushdown_eval_time=868.499µs, statistics_eval_time=59.672µs, time_elapsed_opening=4.838903ms, time_elapsed_processing=292.590292ms, time_elapsed_scanning_total=220.44782ms, time_elapsed_scanning_until_data=216.799489ms]
```

I strongly suspect the plan and the join order as in the simplified version a lot more files ranges are pruned

Start with the linked plans and explain-analyze output, comparing the dynamic-filter predicate ranges, scan pruning metrics, and join order between the two queries. Investigate why the TPC-DS q54 variant scans web_sales broadly; done means it achieves effective range pruning comparable to the simplified query without regressing the reported behavior.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.