Slimmify BTree by replacing the three Vecs in Node with a manually alloc...

...ated buffer.

Before:

    test btree::map::bench::find_rand_100                      ... bench:        29 ns/iter (+/- 2)
    test btree::map::bench::find_rand_10_000                   ... bench:        83 ns/iter (+/- 6)
    test btree::map::bench::find_seq_100                       ... bench:        30 ns/iter (+/- 1)
    test btree::map::bench::find_seq_10_000                    ... bench:        50 ns/iter (+/- 3)
    test btree::map::bench::insert_rand_100                    ... bench:       186 ns/iter (+/- 30)
    test btree::map::bench::insert_rand_10_000                 ... bench:       377 ns/iter (+/- 8)
    test btree::map::bench::insert_seq_100                     ... bench:       299 ns/iter (+/- 10)
    test btree::map::bench::insert_seq_10_000                  ... bench:       368 ns/iter (+/- 12)
    test btree::map::bench::iter_1000                          ... bench:     20956 ns/iter (+/- 479)
    test btree::map::bench::iter_100000                        ... bench:   2060899 ns/iter (+/- 44325)
    test btree::map::bench::iter_20                            ... bench:       560 ns/iter (+/- 63)

After:

    test btree::map::bench::find_rand_100                      ... bench:        28 ns/iter (+/- 2)
    test btree::map::bench::find_rand_10_000                   ... bench:        74 ns/iter (+/- 3)
    test btree::map::bench::find_seq_100                       ... bench:        31 ns/iter (+/- 0)
    test btree::map::bench::find_seq_10_000                    ... bench:        46 ns/iter (+/- 0)
    test btree::map::bench::insert_rand_100                    ... bench:       141 ns/iter (+/- 1)
    test btree::map::bench::insert_rand_10_000                 ... bench:       273 ns/iter (+/- 12)
    test btree::map::bench::insert_seq_100                     ... bench:       255 ns/iter (+/- 17)
    test btree::map::bench::insert_seq_10_000                  ... bench:       340 ns/iter (+/- 3)
    test btree::map::bench::iter_1000                          ... bench:     21193 ns/iter (+/- 1958)
    test btree::map::bench::iter_100000                        ... bench:   2203599 ns/iter (+/- 100491)
    test btree::map::bench::iter_20                            ... bench:       614 ns/iter (+/- 110)

This code could probably be a fair bit cleaner, but it works.

Part of #18009.
I understand that, I'm suggesting the contract/ownership story becomes "you must manually ensure all elements are destroyed before letting it go out of scope", and the destructor just checks this (in debug builds). There could even be a method to make it easier:

```rust
fn destroy_contents(&mut self) { for _ in *self {} }
```

That suggestion is because the ownership story isn't quite so consistent, as this piece of code indicates: ownership of the elements has been transferred, but their backing storage is still kicking around and needs to be handled carefully.