Outline nulls from `ScalarValue` and fix de/serialization with Proto #6309

Performance Regression: -98.62%

⚡ 37 improved benchmarks
❌ 32 regressed benchmarks
✅ 1069 untouched benchmarks
⏩ 1265 skipped benchmarks¹

⚠️ Please fix the performance issues or acknowledge them on CodSpeed.

	Mode	Benchmark	`BASE`	`HEAD`	Efficiency
❌	Simulation	`chunked_varbinview_canonical_into[(1000, 10)]`	823.3 µs	928.5 µs	-11.34%
❌	Simulation	`chunked_varbinview_into_canonical[(1000, 10)]`	840.5 µs	947.5 µs	-11.28%
❌	Simulation	`bench_many_nulls[0.9]`	469.4 µs	535.2 µs	-12.29%
⚡	Simulation	`take_fsl_nullable_random[1024, 1000]`	22.6 ms	8.9 ms	×2.5
❌	Simulation	`scalar_at_struct_wide`	3.2 ms	3.6 ms	-12.15%
⚡	Simulation	`take_fsl_nullable_random[16, 100]`	123.2 µs	109.5 µs	+12.56%
⚡	Simulation	`take_fsl_random[16, 1000]`	367.4 µs	178.5 µs	×2.1
⚡	Simulation	`take_fsl_nullable_random[1024, 100]`	1,987.4 µs	929.1 µs	×2.1
⚡	Simulation	`take_fsl_nullable_random[16, 1000]`	399.7 µs	220.1 µs	+81.64%
⚡	Simulation	`take_fsl_nullable_random[256, 100]`	526 µs	261.5 µs	×2
⚡	Simulation	`take_fsl_nullable_random[4096, 1000]`	90.8 ms	35.3 ms	×2.6
⚡	Simulation	`take_fsl_random[256, 100]`	520.5 µs	248.9 µs	×2.1
⚡	Simulation	`take_fsl_nullable_random[4096, 100]`	8.1 ms	3.6 ms	×2.3
⚡	Simulation	`take_fsl_random[1024, 1000]`	23 ms	8.9 ms	×2.6
⚡	Simulation	`take_fsl_random[1024, 100]`	1,992.8 µs	912.9 µs	×2.2
⚡	Simulation	`take_fsl_random[4096, 1000]`	92.7 ms	35.5 ms	×2.6
⚡	Simulation	`take_fsl_random[16, 100]`	60.6 µs	42 µs	+44.16%
⚡	Simulation	`take_fsl_nullable_random[256, 1000]`	4.7 ms	2.2 ms	×2.2
⚡	Simulation	`take_fsl_random[64, 1000]`	1,278.2 µs	593.5 µs	×2.2
⚡	Simulation	`take_fsl_nullable_random[64, 1000]`	1,265.9 µs	609.8 µs	×2.1
...	...	...	...	...	...

ℹ️ Only the first 20 benchmarks are displayed. Go to the app to view all benchmarks.

_{Comparing ct/outline-work (82bd55c) with develop (6b8fb88)²}

1265 benchmarks were skipped, so the baseline results were used instead. If they were deleted from the codebase, click here and archive them to remove them from the performance reports. ↩
No successful run was found on develop (a11336d) during the generation of this report, so 6b8fb88 was used instead as the comparison base. There might be some changes unrelated to this pull request in this report. ↩