Use more efficient variants of URLEncoder::encode and URLDecoder::decode

[yashmayya]

• The URLEncoder::encode(String, String) and URLDecoder::decode(String, String) variants are slightly less efficient than the URLEncoder::encode(String, Charset) and URLDecoder::decode(String, Charset) variants since the former include an additional charset lookup by name.
• The newer variants were added in Java 10 and since the minimum version we now support is Java 11, these can be safely used.
• The performance difference should be extremely minor since the older variants do use a cache for charset lookup and we're only ever using UTF_8, but this is an easy change anyway. There's also the nice added benefit wherein we no longer need to unnecessarily handle the checked UnsupportedEncodingException.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 26.66667% with 11 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 35.03%. Comparing base (59551e4) to head (41a4aef).
Report is 387 commits behind head on master.

Files	Patch %	Lines
...spi/utils/builder/ControllerRequestURLBuilder.java	0.00%	4 Missing ⚠️
...che/pinot/server/api/resources/TablesResource.java	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️
.../org/apache/pinot/plugin/filesystem/S3PinotFS.java	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️
...n/batch/standalone/SegmentGenerationJobRunner.java	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️
...he/pinot/segment/local/utils/SegmentPushUtils.java	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##             master   #13030       +/-   ##
=============================================
- Coverage     61.75%   35.03%   -26.73%     
+ Complexity      207        6      -201     
=============================================
  Files          2436     2427        -9     
  Lines        133233   132946      -287     
  Branches      20636    20612       -24     
=============================================
- Hits          82274    46573    -35701     
- Misses        44911    82979    +38068     
+ Partials       6048     3394     -2654     

Flag	Coverage Δ
custom-integration1	<0.01% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
integration	<0.01% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
integration1	<0.01% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
integration2	0.00% <0.00%> (ø)
java-11	<0.01% <0.00%> (-61.71%)	⬇️
java-21	35.03% <26.66%> (-26.60%)	⬇️
skip-bytebuffers-false	35.01% <26.66%> (-26.73%)	⬇️
skip-bytebuffers-true	35.01% <26.66%> (+7.28%)	⬆️
temurin	35.03% <26.66%> (-26.73%)	⬇️
unittests	46.55% <44.44%> (-15.20%)	⬇️
unittests1	46.55% <44.44%> (-0.34%)	⬇️
unittests2	?

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[Jackie-Jiang]

LGTM!