使用Numpy实现的半筛子略有不同:

http://rebrained.com/?p=458

import math
import numpy
def prime6(upto):
    primes=numpy.arange(3,upto+1,2)
    isprime=numpy.ones((upto-1)/2,dtype=bool)
    for factor in primes[:int(math.sqrt(upto))]:
        if isprime[(factor-2)/2]: isprime[(factor*3-2)/2:(upto-1)/2:factor]=0
    return numpy.insert(primes[isprime],0,2)

有人能把这个和其他时间比较一下吗?在我的机器上，它似乎与其他Numpy半筛相当。

这个算法很快，但它有一个严重的缺陷:

>>> sorted(get_primes(530))
[2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73,
79, 83, 89, 97, 101, 103, 107, 109, 113, 127, 131, 137, 139, 149, 151, 157, 163,
167, 173, 179, 181, 191, 193, 197, 199, 211, 223, 227, 229, 233, 239, 241, 251,
257, 263, 269, 271, 277, 281, 283, 293, 307, 311, 313, 317, 331, 337, 347, 349,
353, 359, 367, 373, 379, 383, 389, 397, 401, 409, 419, 421, 431, 433, 439, 443,
449, 457, 461, 463, 467, 479, 487, 491, 499, 503, 509, 521, 523, 527, 529]
>>> 17*31
527
>>> 23*23
529

您假设numbers.pop()将返回集合中最小的数字，但这根本不能保证。集合是无序的，pop()删除并返回任意元素，因此不能使用它从剩余数字中选择下一个质数。

对于Python 3

def rwh_primes2(n):
    correction = (n%6>1)
    n = {0:n,1:n-1,2:n+4,3:n+3,4:n+2,5:n+1}[n%6]
    sieve = [True] * (n//3)
    sieve[0] = False
    for i in range(int(n**0.5)//3+1):
      if sieve[i]:
        k=3*i+1|1
        sieve[      ((k*k)//3)      ::2*k]=[False]*((n//6-(k*k)//6-1)//k+1)
        sieve[(k*k+4*k-2*k*(i&1))//3::2*k]=[False]*((n//6-(k*k+4*k-2*k*(i&1))//6-1)//k+1)
    return [2,3] + [3*i+1|1 for i in range(1,n//3-correction) if sieve[i]]

随着时间的推移，我收集了几个质数筛子。我电脑上最快的是这样的:

from time import time
# 175 ms for all the primes up to the value 10**6
def primes_sieve(limit):
    a = [True] * limit
    a[0] = a[1] = False
    #a[2] = True
    for n in xrange(4, limit, 2):
        a[n] = False
    root_limit = int(limit**.5)+1
    for i in xrange(3,root_limit):
        if a[i]:
            for n in xrange(i*i, limit, 2*i):
                a[n] = False
    return a

LIMIT = 10**6
s=time()
primes = primes_sieve(LIMIT)
print time()-s

对于最快的代码，numpy解决方案是最好的。不过，出于纯粹的学术原因，我发布了我的纯python版本，它比上面发布的食谱版本快不到50%。由于我将整个列表放在内存中，所以需要足够的空间来容纳所有内容，但它的可伸缩性似乎相当好。

def daniel_sieve_2(maxNumber):
    """
    Given a number, returns all numbers less than or equal to
    that number which are prime.
    """
    allNumbers = range(3, maxNumber+1, 2)
    for mIndex, number in enumerate(xrange(3, maxNumber+1, 2)):
        if allNumbers[mIndex] == 0:
            continue
        # now set all multiples to 0
        for index in xrange(mIndex+number, (maxNumber-3)/2+1, number):
            allNumbers[index] = 0
    return [2] + filter(lambda n: n!=0, allNumbers)

结果是:

>>>mine = timeit.Timer("daniel_sieve_2(1000000)",
...                    "from sieves import daniel_sieve_2")
>>>prev = timeit.Timer("get_primes_erat(1000000)",
...                    "from sieves import get_primes_erat")
>>>print "Mine: {0:0.4f} ms".format(min(mine.repeat(3, 1))*1000)
Mine: 428.9446 ms
>>>print "Previous Best {0:0.4f} ms".format(min(prev.repeat(3, 1))*1000)
Previous Best 621.3581 ms

你有一个更快的代码和最简单的代码生成质数。 但对于更大的数字，当n=10000, 10000000时，它不起作用，可能是。pop()方法失败了

考虑:N是质数吗?

case 1: You got some factors of N, for i in range(2, N): If N is prime loop is performed for ~(N-2) times. else less number of times case 2: for i in range(2, int(math.sqrt(N)): Loop is performed for almost ~(sqrt(N)-2) times if N is prime else will break somewhere case 3: Better We Divide N With Only number of primes<=sqrt(N) Where loop is performed for only π(sqrt(N)) times π(sqrt(N)) << sqrt(N) as N increases from math import sqrt from time import * prime_list = [2] n = int(input()) s = time() for n0 in range(2,n+1): for i0 in prime_list: if n0%i0==0: break elif i0>=int(sqrt(n0)): prime_list.append(n0) break e = time() print(e-s) #print(prime_list); print(f'pi({n})={len(prime_list)}') print(f'{n}: {len(prime_list)}, time: {e-s}') Output 100: 25, time: 0.00010275840759277344 1000: 168, time: 0.0008606910705566406 10000: 1229, time: 0.015588521957397461 100000: 9592, time: 0.023436546325683594 1000000: 78498, time: 4.1965954303741455 10000000: 664579, time: 109.24591708183289 100000000: 5761455, time: 2289.130858898163

小于1000似乎很慢，但小于10^6我认为更快。

然而，我无法理解时间的复杂性。