[Enhancement] Use more clear type description in ParquetField (backport #52575)

[mergify]

Why I'm doing:

In the previous code, we used TypeDescriptor to represent type in ParquetField.

But actually, we will only set TypeDescriptor when ParquetField is a complex type, for scalar type, we will set a random value for it. it will easily mislead programmers.

What I'm doing:

Use a more strict type ColumnType to replace TypeDescriptor.

What type of PR is this:

• BugFix
• Feature
• Enhancement
• Refactor
• UT
• Doc
• Tool

Does this PR entail a change in behavior?

• Yes, this PR will result in a change in behavior.
• No, this PR will not result in a change in behavior.

If yes, please specify the type of change:

• Interface/UI changes: syntax, type conversion, expression evaluation, display information
• Parameter changes: default values, similar parameters but with different default values
• Policy changes: use new policy to replace old one, functionality automatically enabled
• Feature removed
• Miscellaneous: upgrade & downgrade compatibility, etc.

Checklist:

• I have added test cases for my bug fix or my new feature
• This pr needs user documentation (for new or modified features or behaviors)
  • I have added documentation for my new feature or new function
• This is a backport pr

Bugfix cherry-pick branch check:

• I have checked the version labels which the pr will be auto-backported to the target branch
  • 3.3
  • 3.2
  • 3.1
  • 3.0
  • 2.5

---

This is an automatic backport of pull request #52575 done by [Mergify](https://mergify.com). ## Why I'm doing: In the previous code, we used TypeDescriptor to represent type in ParquetField.

But actually, we will only set TypeDescriptor when ParquetField is a complex type, for scalar type, we will set a random value for it. it will easily mislead programmers.

What I'm doing:

Use a more strict type ColumnType to replace TypeDescriptor.

What type of PR is this:

• BugFix
• Feature
• Enhancement
• Refactor
• UT
• Doc
• Tool

Does this PR entail a change in behavior?

• Yes, this PR will result in a change in behavior.
• No, this PR will not result in a change in behavior.

If yes, please specify the type of change:

• Interface/UI changes: syntax, type conversion, expression evaluation, display information
• Parameter changes: default values, similar parameters but with different default values
• Policy changes: use new policy to replace old one, functionality automatically enabled
• Feature removed
• Miscellaneous: upgrade & downgrade compatibility, etc.

Checklist:

• I have added test cases for my bug fix or my new feature
• This pr needs user documentation (for new or modified features or behaviors)
  • I have added documentation for my new feature or new function
• This is a backport pr

[mergify]

Cherry-pick of 1028b6a has failed:

On branch mergify/bp/branch-3.2/pr-52575
Your branch is up to date with 'origin/branch-3.2'.

You are currently cherry-picking commit 1028b6ac2c.
  (fix conflicts and run "git cherry-pick --continue")
  (use "git cherry-pick --skip" to skip this patch)
  (use "git cherry-pick --abort" to cancel the cherry-pick operation)

Changes to be committed:
	modified:   be/src/formats/parquet/schema.h
	modified:   be/src/util/system_metrics.cpp
	modified:   be/test/formats/parquet/parquet_cli_reader.h
	modified:   be/test/formats/parquet/parquet_schema_test.cpp

Unmerged paths:
  (use "git add <file>..." to mark resolution)
	both modified:   be/src/formats/parquet/column_reader.cpp
	both modified:   be/src/formats/parquet/group_reader.cpp
	both modified:   be/src/formats/parquet/meta_helper.cpp
	both modified:   be/src/formats/parquet/schema.cpp
	both modified:   be/test/formats/parquet/group_reader_test.cpp

To fix up this pull request, you can check it out locally. See documentation: https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests/reviewing-changes-in-pull-requests/checking-out-pull-requests-locally

[mergify]

@mergify[bot]: Backport conflict, please reslove the conflict and resubmit the pr