Make generic polynomial multiplication interruptible #39884
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Documentation preview for this PR (built with commit f551516; changes) is ready! 🎉 |
tscrim
approved these changes
Apr 18, 2025
|
Actually the memory consumption is only O(n) (even if you finish running the multiplication) and printing out is fast enough (try printing a |
|
Ah, right, degrees add, not multiply... facepalm Yes, you're right, it's not trouble. |
vbraun
pushed a commit
to vbraun/sage
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 20, 2025
sagemathgh-39884: Make generic polynomial multiplication interruptible As in the title. Benchmark can be done as follows ``` sage: from sage.doctest.util import ensure_interruptible_after sage: R.<x> = CDF[] sage: f = R.random_element(degree=5000) sage: g = R.random_element(degree=5000) sage: %time h = f*f sage: %time h = f*g ``` The first one takes ≈ 2.32s and the second one takes ≈ 2.9s on my machine. Additional slowdown is within measurement error anyway (certainly checking a single `bool` is faster than constructing a new Python object). ### 📝 Checklist <!-- Put an `x` in all the boxes that apply. --> - [x] The title is concise and informative. - [x] The description explains in detail what this PR is about. - [ ] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion. - [x] I have created tests covering the changes. - [x] I have updated the documentation and checked the documentation preview. ### ⌛ Dependencies <!-- List all open PRs that this PR logically depends on. For example, --> <!-- - sagemath#12345: short description why this is a dependency --> <!-- - sagemath#34567: ... --> URL: sagemath#39884 Reported by: user202729 Reviewer(s): Travis Scrimshaw
vbraun
pushed a commit
to vbraun/sage
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 21, 2025
sagemathgh-39884: Make generic polynomial multiplication interruptible As in the title. Benchmark can be done as follows ``` sage: from sage.doctest.util import ensure_interruptible_after sage: R.<x> = CDF[] sage: f = R.random_element(degree=5000) sage: g = R.random_element(degree=5000) sage: %time h = f*f sage: %time h = f*g ``` The first one takes ≈ 2.32s and the second one takes ≈ 2.9s on my machine. Additional slowdown is within measurement error anyway (certainly checking a single `bool` is faster than constructing a new Python object). ### 📝 Checklist <!-- Put an `x` in all the boxes that apply. --> - [x] The title is concise and informative. - [x] The description explains in detail what this PR is about. - [ ] I have linked a relevant issue or discussion. - [x] I have created tests covering the changes. - [x] I have updated the documentation and checked the documentation preview. ### ⌛ Dependencies <!-- List all open PRs that this PR logically depends on. For example, --> <!-- - sagemath#12345: short description why this is a dependency --> <!-- - sagemath#34567: ... --> URL: sagemath#39884 Reported by: user202729 Reviewer(s): Travis Scrimshaw
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
As in the title.
Benchmark can be done as follows
The first one takes ≈ 2.32s and the second one takes ≈ 2.9s on my machine. Additional slowdown is within measurement error anyway (certainly checking a single
boolis faster than constructing a new Python object).📝 Checklist
⌛ Dependencies