### What changes were proposed in this pull request?
Change `CombineLimits` name to `EliminateLimits` and add check if `Limit` child max row <= limit.
### Why are the changes needed?
In Add-hoc scene, we always add limit for the query if user have no special limit value, but not all limit is nesessary.
A general negative example is
```
select count(*) from t limit 100000;
```
It will be great if we can eliminate limit at Spark side.
Also, we make a benchmark for this case
```
runBenchmark("Sort and Limit") {
val N = 100000
val benchmark = new Benchmark("benchmark sort and limit", N)
benchmark.addCase("TakeOrderedAndProject", 3) { _ =>
spark.range(N).toDF("c").repartition(200).sort("c").take(200000)
}
benchmark.addCase("Sort And Limit", 3) { _ =>
withSQLConf("spark.sql.execution.topKSortFallbackThreshold" -> "-1") {
spark.range(N).toDF("c").repartition(200).sort("c").take(200000)
}
}
benchmark.addCase("Sort", 3) { _ =>
spark.range(N).toDF("c").repartition(200).sort("c").collect()
}
benchmark.run()
}
```
and the result is
```
Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM 1.8.0_191-b12 on Mac OS X 10.15.6
Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-5257U CPU 2.70GHz
benchmark sort and limit: Best Time(ms) Avg Time(ms) Stdev(ms) Rate(M/s) Per Row(ns) Relative
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TakeOrderedAndProject 1833 2259 382 0.1 18327.1 1.0X
Sort And Limit 1417 1658 285 0.1 14167.5 1.3X
Sort 1324 1484 225 0.1 13238.3 1.4X
```
It shows that it makes sense to replace `TakeOrderedAndProjectExec` with `Sort + Project`.
### Does this PR introduce _any_ user-facing change?
No.
### How was this patch tested?
Add test.
Closes#30368 from ulysses-you/SPARK-33442.
Authored-by: ulysses <youxiduo@weidian.com>
Signed-off-by: Wenchen Fan <wenchen@databricks.com>
21b13506cd