Expire cache in IssuablesCountForState every 1 hour

What does this MR do and why?

Related to #325656 (closed)

In !67418 (merged) we introduced caching the group issues state counts (displayed in the issues list tabs) but still being tested behind the FF :cached_issues_state_count. As a following iteration, we would like to increase the expiration time of the caching in IssuablesCountForState

With the initial metrics, we can see an improvement in the first visual change and overall loading times for issues in the gitlab-org group.

• Dashboard
• Page summary: before & after

The improvements are not that evident when looking at Kibana logs thought.

Given that this issues list has ~50 hits per hour, expiring the cache less often should improve the average and return better results.

Also, these count values are only cached when they are over 1000 (and thus rounded to thousands) so the impact on precision shouldn't be too significant.

Slack thread (internal) with PMs validation.

Screenshots or screen recordings

How to set up and validate locally

1. Enable the feature flag

Feature.enable(:cached_issues_state_count)

1. Visit a group containing at least a thousand open and a thousand closed issues.
2. Navigate to the issues list. Example: http://127.0.0.1:3000/groups/group-name/-/issues
3. After first caching, the page should load faster and maintain this behaviour for the following hour.

MR acceptance checklist

These checklists encourage us to confirm any changes have been analyzed to reduce risks in quality, performance, reliability, security, and maintainability.

Quality

• Confirmed

1. I have self-reviewed this MR per code review guidelines.
2. For the code that that this change impacts, I believe that the automated tests (Testing Guide) validate functionality that is highly important to users (including consideration of all test levels). If the existing automated tests do not cover this functionality, I have added the necessary additional tests or I have added an issue to describe the automation testing gap and linked it to this MR.
3. I have considered the technical aspects of the impact of this change on both gitlab.com hosted customers and self-hosted customers.
4. I have considered the impact of this change on the front-end, back-end, and database portions of the system where appropriate and applied frontend, backend and database labels accordingly.
5. I have tested this MR in all supported browsers, or determiend that this testing is not needed.
6. I have confirmed that this change is backwards compatible across updates, or I have decided that this does not apply.
7. I have properly separated EE content from FOSS, or this MR is FOSS only. (Where should EE code go?)
8. If I am introducing a new expectation for existing data, I have confirmed that existing data meets this expectation or I have made this expectation optional rather than required.

Performance, reliability and availability

• Confirmed

1. I am confident that this MR does not harm performance, or I have asked a reviewer to help assess the performance impact. (Merge request performance guidelines)
2. I have added information for database reviewers in the MR description, or I have decided that it is unnecessary. (Does this MR have database-related changes?)
3. I have considered the availability and reliability risks of this change. I have also considered the scalability risk based on future predicted growth
4. I have considered the performance, reliability and availability impacts of this change on large customers who may have significantly more data than the average customer.

Documentation

• Confirmed

1. I have included changelog trailers, or I have decided that they are not needed. (Does this MR need a changelog?)
2. I have added/updated documentation, or I have decided that documentation changes are not needed for this MR. (Is documentation required?)

Security

• Confirmed

1. I have confirmed that if this MR contains changes to processing or storing of credentials or tokens, authorization, and authentication methods, or other items described in the security review guidelines, I have added the label security and I have @-mentioned @gitlab-com/gl-security/appsec.

Deployment

• Confirmed

1. I have considered using a feature flag for this change because the change may be high risk. If I decided to use a feature flag, I plan to test the change in staging before I test it in production, and I have considered rolling it out to a subset of production customers before doing rolling it out to all customers. When to use a feature flag
2. I have informed the Infrastructure department of a default setting or new setting change per definition of done, or decided that this is not needed.

Related to #325656 (closed)