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

这里有一个来自Python Cookbook的非常简洁的示例——该URL的最快版本是:

import itertools
def erat2( ):
    D = {  }
    yield 2
    for q in itertools.islice(itertools.count(3), 0, None, 2):
        p = D.pop(q, None)
        if p is None:
            D[q*q] = q
            yield q
        else:
            x = p + q
            while x in D or not (x&1):
                x += p
            D[x] = p

这就给出了

def get_primes_erat(n):
  return list(itertools.takewhile(lambda p: p<n, erat2()))

在shell提示符(正如我喜欢做的那样)中测量这段代码在pri.py中，我观察到:

$ python2.5 -mtimeit -s'import pri' 'pri.get_primes(1000000)'
10 loops, best of 3: 1.69 sec per loop
$ python2.5 -mtimeit -s'import pri' 'pri.get_primes_erat(1000000)'
10 loops, best of 3: 673 msec per loop

所以看起来食谱解决方案的速度是原来的两倍多。

更快、更内存的纯Python代码:

def primes(n):
    """ Returns  a list of primes < n """
    sieve = [True] * n
    for i in range(3,int(n**0.5)+1,2):
        if sieve[i]:
            sieve[i*i::2*i]=[False]*((n-i*i-1)//(2*i)+1)
    return [2] + [i for i in range(3,n,2) if sieve[i]]

或者从半筛子开始

def primes1(n):
    """ Returns  a list of primes < n """
    sieve = [True] * (n//2)
    for i in range(3,int(n**0.5)+1,2):
        if sieve[i//2]:
            sieve[i*i//2::i] = [False] * ((n-i*i-1)//(2*i)+1)
    return [2] + [2*i+1 for i in range(1,n//2) if sieve[i]]

更快，内存更明智的numpy代码:

import numpy
def primesfrom3to(n):
    """ Returns a array of primes, 3 <= p < n """
    sieve = numpy.ones(n//2, dtype=bool)
    for i in range(3,int(n**0.5)+1,2):
        if sieve[i//2]:
            sieve[i*i//2::i] = False
    return 2*numpy.nonzero(sieve)[0][1::]+1

从三分之一筛子开始的一种更快的变化:

import numpy
def primesfrom2to(n):
    """ Input n>=6, Returns a array of primes, 2 <= p < n """
    sieve = numpy.ones(n//3 + (n%6==2), dtype=bool)
    for i in range(1,int(n**0.5)//3+1):
        if sieve[i]:
            k=3*i+1|1
            sieve[       k*k//3     ::2*k] = False
            sieve[k*(k-2*(i&1)+4)//3::2*k] = False
    return numpy.r_[2,3,((3*numpy.nonzero(sieve)[0][1:]+1)|1)]

上面代码的纯python版本(很难编码)将是:

def primes2(n):
    """ Input n>=6, Returns a list of primes, 2 <= p < n """
    n, correction = n-n%6+6, 2-(n%6>1)
    sieve = [True] * (n//3)
    for i in range(1,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-2*(i&1)+4)//3::2*k] = [False] * ((n//6-k*(k-2*(i&1)+4)//6-1)//k+1)
    return [2,3] + [3*i+1|1 for i in range(1,n//3-correction) if sieve[i]]

不幸的是，pure-python不采用更简单和更快的numpy方式进行赋值，并且在循环中调用len()，如[False]*len(sieve[((k*k)//3)::2*k])太慢。所以我不得不即兴修正输入(避免更多的数学运算)，并做一些极端的(痛苦的)数学魔术。

我个人认为numpy(它被广泛使用)不是Python标准库的一部分是很遗憾的，而且Python开发人员似乎完全忽略了语法和速度方面的改进。

使用Sundaram的Sieve，我想我打破了pure-Python的记录:

def sundaram3(max_n):
    numbers = range(3, max_n+1, 2)
    half = (max_n)//2
    initial = 4

    for step in xrange(3, max_n+1, 2):
        for i in xrange(initial, half, step):
            numbers[i-1] = 0
        initial += 2*(step+1)

        if initial > half:
            return [2] + filter(None, numbers)

Comparasion:

C:\USERS>python -m timeit -n10 -s "import get_primes" "get_primes.get_primes_erat(1000000)"
10 loops, best of 3: 710 msec per loop

C:\USERS>python -m timeit -n10 -s "import get_primes" "get_primes.daniel_sieve_2(1000000)"
10 loops, best of 3: 435 msec per loop

C:\USERS>python -m timeit -n10 -s "import get_primes" "get_primes.sundaram3(1000000)"
10 loops, best of 3: 327 msec per loop

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)

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