feat: add benchmark with filtering

[davidbp]

Results from the benchmark

| Stored data |% same filter| Indexing time | Query size=1 | Query size=8 | Query size=64|
|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|
| 10000.000 | 0.050 | 2.869 | 0.004 | 0.030 | 0.270 |
| 10000.000 | 0.150 | 2.869 | 0.004 | 0.035 | 0.294 |
| 10000.000 | 0.200 | 3.506 | 0.005 | 0.038 | 0.287 |
| 10000.000 | 0.300 | 3.506 | 0.005 | 0.044 | 0.356 |
| 10000.000 | 0.500 | 3.506 | 0.008 | 0.064 | 0.484 |
| 10000.000 | 0.800 | 2.869 | 0.013 | 0.098 | 0.910 |
| 100000.000 | 0.050 | 75.960 | 0.018 | 0.134 | 1.092 |
| 100000.000 | 0.150 | 75.960 | 0.026 | 0.211 | 1.736 |
| 100000.000 | 0.200 | 78.475 | 0.034 | 0.265 | 2.097 |
| 100000.000 | 0.300 | 78.475 | 0.044 | 0.357 | 2.887 |
| 100000.000 | 0.500 | 78.475 | 0.068 | 0.565 | 4.383 |
| 100000.000 | 0.800 | 75.960 | 0.111 | 0.878 | 6.815 |
| 500000.000 | 0.050 | 497.744 | 0.069 | 0.561 | 4.439 |
| 500000.000 | 0.150 | 497.744 | 0.134 | 1.064 | 8.469 |
| 500000.000 | 0.200 | 440.108 | 0.152 | 1.199 | 9.472 |
| 500000.000 | 0.300 | 440.108 | 0.212 | 1.650 | 13.267 |
| 500000.000 | 0.500 | 440.108 | 0.328 | 2.637 | 21.961 |
| 500000.000 | 0.800 | 497.744 | 0.580 | 4.602 | 36.986 |
| 1000000.000 | 0.050 | 1052.388 | 0.131 | 1.031 | 8.212 |
| 1000000.000 | 0.150 | 1052.388 | 0.263 | 2.191 | 16.643 |
| 1000000.000 | 0.200 | 980.598 | 0.351 | 2.659 | 21.193 |
| 1000000.000 | 0.300 | 980.598 | 0.461 | 3.713 | 29.794 |
| 1000000.000 | 0.500 | 980.598 | 0.732 | 5.975 | 47.356 |
| 1000000.000 | 0.800 | 1052.388 | 1.151 | 9.255 | 73.552 |```

[numb3r3]

LGTM 👍

As we can see, the performance with large filter prob is not so good. I would like to merge this PR after we finish this ticket #68

[davidbp]

It seems to me that #68 will not help in the case where the filter applies to most of the data.

[numb3r3]

@davidbp Yes, you are correct. The bottleneck is about the table query. I created an issue ticket to track. #73