到目前为止，我尝试过的最快的方法是基于Python烹饪书erat2函数:

import itertools as it
def erat2a( ):
    D = {  }
    yield 2
    for q in it.islice(it.count(3), 0, None, 2):
        p = D.pop(q, None)
        if p is None:
            D[q*q] = q
            yield q
        else:
            x = q + 2*p
            while x in D:
                x += 2*p
            D[x] = p

关于加速的解释，请看下面的答案。

假设N < 9,080,191, Miller-Rabin's Primality检验的确定性实现

import sys

def miller_rabin_pass(a, n):
    d = n - 1
    s = 0
    while d % 2 == 0:
        d >>= 1
        s += 1

    a_to_power = pow(a, d, n)
    if a_to_power == 1:
        return True
    for i in range(s-1):
        if a_to_power == n - 1:
            return True
        a_to_power = (a_to_power * a_to_power) % n
    return a_to_power == n - 1


def miller_rabin(n):
    if n <= 2:
        return n == 2

    if n < 2_047:
        return miller_rabin_pass(2, n)

    return all(miller_rabin_pass(a, n) for a in (31, 73))


n = int(sys.argv[1])
primes = [2]
for p in range(3,n,2):
  if miller_rabin(p):
    primes.append(p)
print len(primes)

根据维基百科(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller -Rabin_primality_test)上的文章，对于a = 37和73，测试N < 9,080,191足以判断N是否为合数。

我从原始米勒-拉宾测试的概率实现中改编了源代码:https://www.literateprograms.org/miller-rabin_primality_test__python_.html

很抱歉打扰，但erat2()在算法中有一个严重的缺陷。

在搜索下一个合成时，我们只需要测试奇数。 Q p都是奇数;那么q+p是偶数，不需要检验，但q+2*p总是奇数。这消除了while循环条件中的“if even”测试，并节省了大约30%的运行时。

当我们在它:而不是优雅的'D.pop(q,None)'获取和删除方法，使用'if q in D: p=D[q]，del D[q]'，这是两倍的速度!至少在我的机器上(P3-1Ghz)。 所以我建议这个聪明算法的实现:

def erat3( ):
    from itertools import islice, count

    # q is the running integer that's checked for primeness.
    # yield 2 and no other even number thereafter
    yield 2
    D = {}
    # no need to mark D[4] as we will test odd numbers only
    for q in islice(count(3),0,None,2):
        if q in D:                  #  is composite
            p = D[q]
            del D[q]
            # q is composite. p=D[q] is the first prime that
            # divides it. Since we've reached q, we no longer
            # need it in the map, but we'll mark the next
            # multiple of its witnesses to prepare for larger
            # numbers.
            x = q + p+p        # next odd(!) multiple
            while x in D:      # skip composites
                x += p+p
            D[x] = p
        else:                  # is prime
            # q is a new prime.
            # Yield it and mark its first multiple that isn't
            # already marked in previous iterations.
            D[q*q] = q
            yield q

在写这篇文章的时候，这是最快的工作解决方案(至少在我的机器上是这样)。它同时使用numpy和bitarray，并受到这个答案的primesfrom2to的启发。

import numpy as np
from bitarray import bitarray


def bit_primes(n):
    bit_sieve = bitarray(n // 3 + (n % 6 == 2))
    bit_sieve.setall(1)
    bit_sieve[0] = False

    for i in range(int(n ** 0.5) // 3 + 1):
        if bit_sieve[i]:
            k = 3 * i + 1 | 1
            bit_sieve[k * k // 3::2 * k] = False
            bit_sieve[(k * k + 4 * k - 2 * k * (i & 1)) // 3::2 * k] = False

    np_sieve = np.unpackbits(np.frombuffer(bit_sieve.tobytes(), dtype=np.uint8)).view(bool)
    return np.concatenate(((2, 3), ((3 * np.flatnonzero(np_sieve) + 1) | 1)))

下面是与素数from2to的比较，它之前被发现是unutbu比较中最快的解:

python3 -m timeit -s "import fast_primes" "fast_primes.bit_primes(1000000)"
200 loops, best of 5: 1.19 msec per loop

python3 -m timeit -s "import fast_primes" "fast_primes.primesfrom2to(1000000)"
200 loops, best of 5: 1.23 msec per loop

对于寻找100万以下的质数，bit_primes稍微快一些。 n值越大，差异就越大。在某些情况下，bit_primes的速度是原来的两倍多:

python3 -m timeit -s "import fast_primes" "fast_primes.bit_primes(500_000_000)"
1 loop, best of 5: 540 msec per loop

python3 -m timeit -s "import fast_primes" "fast_primes.primesfrom2to(500_000_000)"
1 loop, best of 5: 1.15 sec per loop

作为参考，以下是primesfrom2to I的最小修改版本(适用于Python 3):

def primesfrom2to(n):
    # https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2068372/fastest-way-to-list-all-primes-below-n-in-python/3035188#3035188
    """ Input n>=6, Returns a array of primes, 2 <= p < n"""
    sieve = np.ones(n // 3 + (n % 6 == 2), dtype=np.bool)
    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
            sieve[(k * k + 4 * k - 2 * k * (i & 1)) // 3::2 * k] = False
    return np.r_[2, 3, ((3 * np.nonzero(sieve)[0] + 1) | 1)]

到目前为止，我尝试过的最快的方法是基于Python烹饪书erat2函数:

import itertools as it
def erat2a( ):
    D = {  }
    yield 2
    for q in it.islice(it.count(3), 0, None, 2):
        p = D.pop(q, None)
        if p is None:
            D[q*q] = q
            yield q
        else:
            x = q + 2*p
            while x in D:
                x += 2*p
            D[x] = p

关于加速的解释，请看下面的答案。

这些都是经过编写和测试的。所以没有必要重新发明轮子。

python -m timeit -r10 -s"from sympy import sieve" "primes = list(sieve.primerange(1, 10**6))"

打破了12.2秒的记录!

10 loops, best of 10: 12.2 msec per loop

如果这还不够快，你可以试试PyPy:

pypy -m timeit -r10 -s"from sympy import sieve" "primes = list(sieve.primerange(1, 10**6))"

结果是:

10 loops, best of 10: 2.03 msec per loop

得到247张赞成票的答案列出了15.9毫秒的最佳解决方案。 比较这个! !