我很好奇不同方法的性能，这里是：

在Python 3.5.1上测试

import time
batch_size = 7
arr_len = 298937

#---------slice-------------

print("\r\nslice")
start = time.time()
arr = [i for i in range(0, arr_len)]
while True:
    if not arr:
        break

    tmp = arr[0:batch_size]
    arr = arr[batch_size:-1]
print(time.time() - start)

#-----------index-----------

print("\r\nindex")
arr = [i for i in range(0, arr_len)]
start = time.time()
for i in range(0, round(len(arr) / batch_size + 1)):
    tmp = arr[batch_size * i : batch_size * (i + 1)]
print(time.time() - start)

#----------batches 1------------

def batch(iterable, n=1):
    l = len(iterable)
    for ndx in range(0, l, n):
        yield iterable[ndx:min(ndx + n, l)]

print("\r\nbatches 1")
arr = [i for i in range(0, arr_len)]
start = time.time()
for x in batch(arr, batch_size):
    tmp = x
print(time.time() - start)

#----------batches 2------------

from itertools import islice, chain

def batch(iterable, size):
    sourceiter = iter(iterable)
    while True:
        batchiter = islice(sourceiter, size)
        yield chain([next(batchiter)], batchiter)


print("\r\nbatches 2")
arr = [i for i in range(0, arr_len)]
start = time.time()
for x in batch(arr, batch_size):
    tmp = x
print(time.time() - start)

#---------chunks-------------
def chunks(l, n):
    """Yield successive n-sized chunks from l."""
    for i in range(0, len(l), n):
        yield l[i:i + n]
print("\r\nchunks")
arr = [i for i in range(0, arr_len)]
start = time.time()
for x in chunks(arr, batch_size):
    tmp = x
print(time.time() - start)

#-----------grouper-----------

from itertools import zip_longest # for Python 3.x
#from six.moves import zip_longest # for both (uses the six compat library)

def grouper(iterable, n, padvalue=None):
    "grouper(3, 'abcdefg', 'x') --> ('a','b','c'), ('d','e','f'), ('g','x','x')"
    return zip_longest(*[iter(iterable)]*n, fillvalue=padvalue)

arr = [i for i in range(0, arr_len)]
print("\r\ngrouper")
start = time.time()
for x in grouper(arr, batch_size):
    tmp = x
print(time.time() - start)

结果：

slice
31.18285083770752

index
0.02184295654296875

batches 1
0.03503894805908203

batches 2
0.22681021690368652

chunks
0.019841909408569336

grouper
0.006506919860839844

与任何可迭代的内部数据是生成器对象（不是列表）一个衬垫

In [259]: get_in_chunks = lambda itr,n: ( (v for _,v in g) for _,g in itertools.groupby(enumerate(itr),lambda (ind,_): ind/n))

In [260]: list(list(x) for x in get_in_chunks(range(30),7))
Out[260]:
[[0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6],
 [7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13],
 [14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20],
 [21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27],
 [28, 29]]

没有魔力，但简单而正确：

def chunks(iterable, n):
    """Yield successive n-sized chunks from iterable."""
    values = []
    for i, item in enumerate(iterable, 1):
        values.append(item)
        if i % n == 0:
            yield values
            values = []
    if values:
        yield values

用户@tzot的解决方案zip_langest（*[iter（lst）]*n，fillvalue=padvalue）非常优雅，但如果lst的长度不能被n整除，它会填充最后一个子列表，以保持其长度与其他子列表的长度匹配。然而，如果这不可取，那么只需使用zip（）生成类似的循环zip，并将lst的剩余元素（不能生成“完整”子列表）附加到输出即可。

输出示例为ABCDEFG，3->ABC DEF G。

单线版本（Python>=3.8）：

list(map(list, zip(*[iter(lst)]*n))) + ([rest] if (rest:=lst[len(lst)//n*n : ]) else [])

A函数：

def chunkify(lst, chunk_size):
    nested = list(map(list, zip(*[iter(lst)]*chunk_size)))
    rest = lst[len(lst)//chunk_size*chunk_size: ]
    if rest:
        nested.append(rest)
    return nested

生成器（尽管每个批次都是一个元组）：

def chunkify(lst, chunk_size):
    for tup in zip(*[iter(lst)]*chunk_size):
        yield tup
    rest = tuple(lst[len(lst)//chunk_size*chunk_size: ])
    if rest:
        yield rest

它比这里的一些最流行的答案产生相同的输出更快。

my_list, n = list(range(1_000_000)), 12

%timeit list(chunks(my_list, n))                                         # @Ned_Batchelder
# 36.4 ms ± 1.6 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10 loops each)

%timeit [my_list[i:i+n] for i in range(0, len(my_list), n)]              # @Ned_Batchelder
# 34.6 ms ± 1.12 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10 loops each)

%timeit it = iter(my_list); list(iter(lambda: list(islice(it, n)), []))  # @senderle
# 60.6 ms ± 5.36 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10 loops each)

%timeit list(mit.chunked(my_list, n))                                    # @pylang
# 59.4 ms ± 4.92 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10 loops each)

%timeit chunkify(my_list, n)
# 25.8 ms ± 1.84 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10 loops each)

同样，从Python 3.12开始，这个功能将作为itertools模块中的批处理方法来实现（目前是一个配方），因此这个答案很可能会被Python 3.12淘汰。

一个简单的解决方案

OP已请求“相等大小的块”。我将“等尺寸”理解为“平衡”尺寸：如果尺寸不可能相等（例如，23/5），我们正在寻找尺寸大致相同的物品组。

这里的输入是：

项目列表：input_list（例如，23个数字的列表）要拆分这些项目的组数：n个组（例如5个）

输入：

input_list = list(range(23))
n_groups = 5

连续元素组：

approx_sizes = len(input_list)/n_groups 

groups_cont = [input_list[int(i*approx_sizes):int((i+1)*approx_sizes)] 
               for i in range(n_groups)]

“每N个”元素组：

groups_leap = [input_list[i::n_groups] 
               for i in range(n_groups)]

后果

print(len(input_list))

print('Contiguous elements lists:')
print(groups_cont)

print('Leap every "N" items lists:')
print(groups_leap)

将输出：23连续元素列表：[[0, 1, 2, 3], [4, 5, 6, 7, 8], [9, 10, 11, 12], [13, 14, 15, 16, 17], [18, 19, 20, 21, 22]]跳过每“N”个项目列表：[[0, 5, 10, 15, 20], [1, 6, 11, 16, 21], [2, 7, 12, 17, 22], [3, 8, 13, 18], [4, 9, 14, 19]]

由于我必须这样做，下面是我的解决方案，给出了一个生成器和一个批量大小：

def pop_n_elems_from_generator(g, n):
    elems = []
    try:
        for idx in xrange(0, n):
            elems.append(g.next())
        return elems
    except StopIteration:
        return elems