GH-46396: [C++][Documentation][Statistics] Revise the documentation to clarify that arrow::ArrayStatistics is ignored during arrow::Array comparisons

[andishgar]

Rationale for this change

as mentiond here, The document should be clarified that arrow::ArrayStatistics is not inlcuded in the arrow::Array comparasion

What changes are included in this PR?

Add documets for arrow::Array::Equals, arrow::Array::ApproxEquals, arrow::Array::EqualsRange, arrow::ArrayEquals, arrow::ArrayApproxEquals, arrow::ArrayRangeEquals, and arrow::ArrayRangeApproxEquals

Are these changes tested?

No

Are there any user-facing changes?

No

• GitHub Issue: [Discuss][C++][Statistics] Should arrow::Array::Equals() checks wheter two arrow::Array have the same arrow::ArrayStatistics #46396

[github-actions]

Thanks for opening a pull request!

If this is not a minor PR. Could you open an issue for this pull request on GitHub? https://github.com/apache/arrow/issues/new/choose

Opening GitHub issues ahead of time contributes to the Openness of the Apache Arrow project.

Then could you also rename the pull request title in the following format?

GH-${GITHUB_ISSUE_ID}: [${COMPONENT}] ${SUMMARY}

or

MINOR: [${COMPONENT}] ${SUMMARY}

See also:

• Other pull requests
• Contribution Guidelines - Contributing Overview

[github-actions]

⚠️ GitHub issue #46396has been automatically assigned in GitHub to PR creator.

[andishgar]

@kou Are the method comments okay, or do you have any suggestions for improvement?

[kou]

+1

[conbench-apache-arrow]

After merging your PR, Conbench analyzed the 4 benchmarking runs that have been run so far on merge-commit e20ccb6.

There were no benchmark performance regressions. 🎉

The full Conbench report has more details. It also includes information about 8 possible false positives for unstable benchmarks that are known to sometimes produce them.