这是我能想到的最好的算法。
def get_primes(n):
numbers = set(range(n, 1, -1))
primes = []
while numbers:
p = numbers.pop()
primes.append(p)
numbers.difference_update(set(range(p*2, n+1, p)))
return primes
>>> timeit.Timer(stmt='get_primes.get_primes(1000000)', setup='import get_primes').timeit(1)
1.1499958793645562
还能做得更快吗?
这段代码有一个缺陷:由于numbers是一个无序集，不能保证numbers.pop()将从集合中移除最低的数字。尽管如此，它还是适用于(至少对我来说)一些输入数字:
>>> sum(get_primes(2000000))
142913828922L
#That's the correct sum of all numbers below 2 million
>>> 529 in get_primes(1000)
False
>>> 529 in get_primes(530)
True
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)]
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
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)]
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。
