这是使用存储列表查找质数的一种优雅而简单的解决方案。从4个变量开始，你只需要测试除数的奇数质数，你只需要测试你要测试的质数的一半(测试9,11,13是否能整除17没有意义)。它将先前存储的质数作为除数进行测试。

    # Program to calculate Primes
 primes = [1,3,5,7]
for n in range(9,100000,2):
    for x in range(1,(len(primes)/2)):
        if n % primes[x] == 0:
            break
    else:
        primes.append(n)
print primes

从2021年的答案开始，我还没有发现二进制数组方法对10亿以下的质数有利。

但我可以用几个技巧将质数从2加速到接近x2:

使用numexpr库将numpy表达式转换为分配较少的紧循环 取代np。有更快的选择 以某种方式操作筛选的前9个元素，因此不需要改变数组的形状

总之，在我的机器上，质数< 10亿的时间从25秒变成了14.5秒

import numexpr as ne
import numpy as np

def primesfrom2to_numexpr(n):
    # https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2068372/fastest-way-to-list-all-primes-below-n-in-python/3035188#3035188
    """ Input n>=24, Returns a array of primes, 2 <= p < n + a few over"""
    sieve = np.zeros((n // 3 + (n % 6 == 2))//4+1, dtype=np.int32)
    ne.evaluate('sieve + 0x01010101', out=sieve)
    sieve = sieve.view('int8')
    #sieve = np.ones(n // 3 + (n % 6 == 2), dtype=np.bool_)
    sieve[0] = 0
    for i in np.arange(int(n ** 0.5) // 3 + 1):
        if sieve[i]:
            k = 3 * i + 1 | 1
            sieve[((k * k) // 3)::2 * k] = 0
            sieve[(k * k + 4 * k - 2 * k * (i & 1)) // 3::2 * k] = 0
    sieve[[0,8]] = 1
    result = np.flatnonzero(sieve)
    ne.evaluate('result * 3 + 1 + result%2', out=result)
    result[:9] = [2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23]
    return result

我对这个问题反应迟钝，但这似乎是一个有趣的练习。我使用numpy，这可能是作弊，我怀疑这个方法是最快的，但它应该是清楚的。它筛选一个仅引用其下标的布尔数组，并从所有True值的下标中引出质数。不需要取模。

import numpy as np
def ajs_primes3a(upto):
    mat = np.ones((upto), dtype=bool)
    mat[0] = False
    mat[1] = False
    mat[4::2] = False
    for idx in range(3, int(upto ** 0.5)+1, 2):
        mat[idx*2::idx] = False
    return np.where(mat == True)[0]

如果你接受itertools，但不接受numpy，这里有一个针对Python 3的rwh_primes2的改编版本，它在我的机器上运行速度大约是原来的两倍。唯一的实质性变化是使用bytearray而不是列表来表示布尔值，并使用压缩而不是列表推导来构建最终列表。(如果可以的话，我会把这句话作为moarningsun之类的评论。)

import itertools
izip = itertools.zip_longest
chain = itertools.chain.from_iterable
compress = itertools.compress
def rwh_primes2_python3(n):
    """ Input n>=6, Returns a list of primes, 2 <= p < n """
    zero = bytearray([False])
    size = n//3 + (n % 6 == 2)
    sieve = bytearray([True]) * size
    sieve[0] = False
    for i in range(int(n**0.5)//3+1):
      if sieve[i]:
        k=3*i+1|1
        start = (k*k+4*k-2*k*(i&1))//3
        sieve[(k*k)//3::2*k]=zero*((size - (k*k)//3 - 1) // (2 * k) + 1)
        sieve[  start ::2*k]=zero*((size -   start  - 1) // (2 * k) + 1)
    ans = [2,3]
    poss = chain(izip(*[range(i, n, 6) for i in (1,5)]))
    ans.extend(compress(poss, sieve))
    return ans

比较:

>>> timeit.timeit('primes.rwh_primes2(10**6)', setup='import primes', number=1)
0.0652179726976101
>>> timeit.timeit('primes.rwh_primes2_python3(10**6)', setup='import primes', number=1)
0.03267321276325674

and

>>> timeit.timeit('primes.rwh_primes2(10**8)', setup='import primes', number=1)
6.394284538007014
>>> timeit.timeit('primes.rwh_primes2_python3(10**8)', setup='import primes', number=1)
3.833829450302801

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。

我很惊讶居然没人提到numba。

该版本在2.47 ms±36.5µs内达到1M标记。

几年前，维基百科页面上出现了一个阿特金筛子的伪代码。这已经不存在了，参考阿特金筛似乎是一个不同的算法。一个2007/03/01版本的维基百科页面(Primer number as 2007-03-01)显示了我用作参考的伪代码。

import numpy as np
from numba import njit

@njit
def nb_primes(n):
    # Generates prime numbers 2 <= p <= n
    # Atkin's sieve -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prime_number&oldid=111775466
    sqrt_n = int(np.sqrt(n)) + 1

    # initialize the sieve
    s = np.full(n + 1, -1, dtype=np.int8)
    s[2] = 1
    s[3] = 1

    # put in candidate primes:
    # integers which have an odd number of
    # representations by certain quadratic forms
    for x in range(1, sqrt_n):
        x2 = x * x
        for y in range(1, sqrt_n):
            y2 = y * y
            k = 4 * x2 + y2
            if k <= n and (k % 12 == 1 or k % 12 == 5): s[k] *= -1
            k = 3 * x2 + y2
            if k <= n and (k % 12 == 7): s[k] *= -1
            k = 3 * x2 - y2
            if k <= n and x > y and k % 12 == 11: s[k] *= -1

    # eliminate composites by sieving
    for k in range(5, sqrt_n):
        if s[k]:
            k2 = k*k
            # k is prime, omit multiples of its square; this is sufficient because
            # composites which managed to get on the list cannot be square-free
            for i in range(1, n // k2 + 1):
                j = i * k2 # j ∈ {k², 2k², 3k², ..., n}
                s[j] = -1
    return np.nonzero(s>0)[0]

# initial run for "compilation" 
nb_primes(10)

时机

In[10]:
%timeit nb_primes(1_000_000)

Out[10]:
2.47 ms ± 36.5 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)

In[11]:
%timeit nb_primes(10_000_000)

Out[11]:
33.4 ms ± 373 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10 loops each)

In[12]:
%timeit nb_primes(100_000_000)

Out[12]:
828 ms ± 5.64 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each)