gh-140036: _pydecimal: avoid slow exponentiation in floor division - #140044

I think both variants are fine, but you should choose one. You shouldn't worry about string conversion limit.

It was to prevent corner cases. I don't have the time to check, but I feel that it's possible to have some q such that q.bit_length() < 1 + context.prec * _LOG_10_BASE_2 is true but len(str(q)) <= context.prec is false. But maybe this is impossible.

I also didn't want to compute str(q) before as it could be an expensive check. If if q.bit_length() < 1 + context.prec * _LOG_10_BASE_2 already fails, there is no need to compute str(q) which could also raise an exception.

It was to prevent corner cases. I don't have the time to check, but I feel that it's possible to have some q such that q.bit_length() < 1 + context.prec * _LOG_10_BASE_2 is true but len(str(q)) <= context.prec is false. But maybe this is impossible.

It's impossible if _LOG_10_BASE_2 is less or equal than real mathematical value of log_2(10) and we change condition to q.bit_length() < context.prec * _LOG_10_BASE_2.

Let's prove it:
a) q.bit_length() < context.prec * _LOG_10_BASE_2 is true
BUT
b) len(str(q)) <= context.prec is false.

We have
a) q.bit_length() < context.prec * _LOG_10_BASE_2
b) len(str(q)) > context.prec.
Since len(str(q)) and context.prec are integers, we have len(str(q)) >= context.prec + 1,
and q >= 10 ** context.prec.
Then we apply mathematical log_2:
log_2 (q) >= context.prec * log_2(10), when log_2(10) is exact value.

Since log_2(10) >= _LOG_10_BASE_2, we have log_2 (q) >= context.prec * log_2(10) >= context.prec * _LOG_10_BASE_2 > q.bit_length().
As a result, q > 2 ** q.bit_length()
And this is impossible inequation.

It seems that checking of q.bit_length() < context.prec * _LOG_10_BASE_2 would be good enough.
If it doesn't, construction of str looks like best solution.

And some small example:

>>> q = 110
>>> prec = 2
>>> q.bit_length() < 1 + prec * math.log2(10)
True
>>> len(str(q)) <= prec
False

Thanks for the analysis.

It's impossible if _LOG_10_BASE_2 is less or equal than real mathematical value of log_2(10)

This appears to be the case as pow(2, float.fromhex('0x1.a934f0979a371p+1')) is something like 9.99...98.

And some small example:

Ok, so the 1+ was indeed too much (that's what I feared). This will also help in changing the q > 10 ** prec case as well.

Michail, thanks for a correction of the first inequality q.bit_length() < context.prec * _LOG_10_BASE_2 (1).

Unfortunately, I don't think that this inequality could be used as an "optimization". Remember, it should be an equivalent of q < 10**context.prec (2). I.e. both inequalities should have same boolean values. In particular, if (1) is false - (2) should be false, as in this case we miss verification by the second check.

This equivalency is trivial for len(str(q)) <= context.prec (3) and (2), where q >= 0 and context.prec > 0 are integers. I think we should use this, there is no possible short-cut.

It's impossible to make equivalent inequality only with q.bit_length. But we can significantly reduce the needs of calculation of len(str(q)). We already prove that if q.bit_length() < context.prec * _LOG_10_BASE_2 then len(str(q)) <= context.prec and there's no need to check. On the other hand, if q.bit_length() >= 1 + context.prec * _LOG_10_BASE_2_G, then q >= 2**(q.bit_length()-1) >= 2**(context.prec * _LOG_10_BASE_2_G) >= 2**(context.prec * log_2(10)) = 10**context.prec, where _LOG_10_BASE_2_G = float.fromhex('0x1.a934f0979a372p+1') which is slightly greater then exact value of log_2(10).

It means we could implement checking this way:

_LOG_10_BASE_2 = float.fromhex('0x1.a934f0979a371p+1')
_LOG_10_BASE_2_G = float.fromhex('0x1.a934f0979a372p+1')

def q_is_greater_or_equal_than_pow_10_a(q: int, a: int) -> bool:
    if q.bit_length() < a * _LOG_10_BASE_2:
        return False
    elif q.bit_length() >= 1 + a * _LOG_10_BASE_2_G:
        return True
    else:
        return len(str(q)) > a

This has more sense for me. Though, IMO such helper not worth if it's required in one or two places in code.

Yes, I forgot to ask yesterday to check for the reverse condition (I started taking my pen & paper but then had to leave). I'll go for a helper as it's used more than once just for clarity purposes.

it's used more than once

I guess, you are planning yet for another instance in #140036 (comment). Two cases - not too much...

On another hand, we have a lot of len(str) computations in the module:

$ git grep 'len(str' Lib/_pydecimal.py | wc -l
40

IMO, keeping code simple is better. Maybe we should apply instead wishful thinking that eventually int->str conversion will be fast.