Solve PCA via `np.linalg.eigh(X_centered.T @ X_centered)` instead of `np.linalg.svd(X_centered)` when `X.shape[1]` is small enough.

### Describe the workflow you want to enable

Assuming that `X.shape[0] >> X.shape[1]` and `X.shape[1]` is small enough to materialize the covariance matrix `X.T @ X`, then using an eigensolver of the covariance matrix is much faster than the SVD of the centered data. See the proof of concept below:



### Describe your proposed solution

```python
>>> import numpy as np
>>> X = np.random.randn(int(1e6), 100)
>>> X -= X.mean(axis=0) # does not impact speed but required for PCA
>>> %time U, s, Vt = np.linalg.svd(X, full_matrices=False)
CPU times: user 22.2 s, sys: 1.59 s, total: 23.8 s
Wall time: 8.18 s
>>> %time eigenvals, eigenvecs = np.linalg.eigh(X.T @ X)
CPU times: user 81.1 ms, sys: 172 ms, total: 253 ms
Wall time: 255 ms
```

That's a 32x speed-up of the `"full"` solver. But it's also much faster than truncated randomized solver, even when `n_components` is quite low:

```python
>>> from sklearn.utils.extmath import randomized_svd
>>> %time U, s, Vt = randomized_svd(X, n_components=2)
CPU times: user 2.76 s, sys: 722 ms, total: 3.48 s
Wall time: 2.45 s
>>> %time U, s, Vt = randomized_svd(X, n_components=5)
CPU times: user 3.68 s, sys: 688 ms, total: 4.36 s
Wall time: 2.67 s
>>> %time U, s, Vt = randomized_svd(X, n_components=10)
CPU times: user 3.55 s, sys: 808 ms, total: 4.35 s
Wall time: 2.81 s
>>> %time U, s, Vt = randomized_svd(X, n_components=50)
CPU times: user 16.3 s, sys: 3.77 s, total: 20.1 s
Wall time: 11.9 s
```

And the results are the same (up to sign flips, hence the use of `np.abs`):

```python
>>> np.allclose(s ** 2, eigenvals[::-1])
True
>>> np.allclose(np.abs(eigenvecs[:, ::-1].T), np.abs(Vt))
True
```

Note that we might need to adapt the `svd_flip` helper (or even introduce `eigen_flip`) to do a proper deterministic sign swap for that strategy.

The SVD variant returns `U` which is useful for a cheap `fit_transform` but when `X.shape[0] >> X.shape[1]` and `X.shape[1]` is likely that `fit_transform()` implemented as `fit().transform()` will still be much faster with `eigh` on the covariance matrix.


Assuming we agree to add this strategy to scikit-learn, we have two options:
- introduce a new `svd_solver="covariance_eigh"` option, even if we don't actually perform an SVD anymore,
- alternatively we could make the `svd_solver="full"` option smart and use `eigh` on covariance whenever `X.shape[0] >> X.shape[1]`.

In either cases we might want to adjust the logic of `svd_solver="auto"` to use this whenever it makes sense (some benchmarking by adapting `benchmarks/bench_kernel_pca_solvers_time_vs_n_components.py` and `benchmarks/bench_kernel_pca_solvers_time_vs_n_samples.py` will be needed).

### Additional context

It might also be possible to do that for implicitly centered sparse data via a linear operator (as done in #18689) to form the covariance matrix (which is likely to be nearly dense when ``X.shape[0] >> X.shape[1]``). 

Also note that this should work with the Array API (see [array_api.linalg.eigh](https://data-apis.org/array-api/latest/extensions/generated/array_api.linalg.eigh.html#array_api.linalg.eigh)), and assuming `array-api-compat` provides a dask adaptor, this would be a very efficient way to do out-of-core (and even distributed) PCA on very large datasets (assuming `X.shape[1]` is small enough). It might be even more efficient than `IncrementalPCA`.

COMMENT:
> @Micky774 I implemented an updated the "auto" heuristic that seems to be quite robust at picking the most efficient solver. See the benchmark results in the PR: https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/pull/27491#issuecomment-1741079946

Thanks for taking the time to develop a good heuristic for this! I expect we can probably use your heuristic in [this PR](https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/pull/23616) as well. I'll update and test that soon. Admittedly I was struggling to find a good heuristic that didn't oversimply, but it looks like you've landed on a good one :D

Labels: Enhancement, Moderate, Performance, Array API