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

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]]

对于足够大的N，真正最快的解决方案是下载一个预先计算的质数列表，将其存储为元组，并执行如下操作:

for pos,i in enumerate(primes):
    if i > N:
        print primes[:pos]

如果只有N >个质数[-1]，则计算更多的质数并将新列表保存在代码中，以便下次同样快。

要跳出思维定势。

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

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

下面是Eratosthenes的一个numpy版本，具有良好的复杂度(低于排序长度为n的数组)和向量化。与@unutbu相比，用46微秒就可以找到100万以下的所有质数。

import numpy as np 
def generate_primes(n):
    is_prime = np.ones(n+1,dtype=bool)
    is_prime[0:2] = False
    for i in range(int(n**0.5)+1):
        if is_prime[i]:
            is_prime[i**2::i]=False
    return np.where(is_prime)[0]

计时:

import time    
for i in range(2,10):
    timer =time.time()
    generate_primes(10**i)
    print('n = 10^',i,' time =', round(time.time()-timer,6))

>> n = 10^ 2  time = 5.6e-05
>> n = 10^ 3  time = 6.4e-05
>> n = 10^ 4  time = 0.000114
>> n = 10^ 5  time = 0.000593
>> n = 10^ 6  time = 0.00467
>> n = 10^ 7  time = 0.177758
>> n = 10^ 8  time = 1.701312
>> n = 10^ 9  time = 19.322478