如果你可以控制N，列出所有质数的最快方法就是预先计算它们。认真对待。预计算是一种被忽视的优化方法。

这是使用存储列表查找质数的一种优雅而简单的解决方案。从4个变量开始，你只需要测试除数的奇数质数，你只需要测试你要测试的质数的一半(测试9,11,13是否能整除17没有意义)。它将先前存储的质数作为除数进行测试。

    # Program to calculate Primes
 primes = [1,3,5,7]
for n in range(9,100000,2):
    for x in range(1,(len(primes)/2)):
        if n % primes[x] == 0:
            break
    else:
        primes.append(n)
print primes

我猜最快的方法是在代码中硬编码质数。

因此，为什么不编写一个缓慢的脚本，生成另一个源文件，其中包含所有数字，然后在运行实际程序时导入该源文件呢?

当然，只有当你在编译时知道N的上限时，这才有效，但这是(几乎)所有项目欧拉问题的情况。

PS:我可能错了，虽然解析源的硬连接质数比计算它们要慢，但据我所知，Python是从编译的.pyc文件运行的，所以在这种情况下，读取一个包含所有质数到N的二进制数组应该是非常快的。

我测试了一些unutbu的功能，我用饥饿的百万数字计算它

获胜者是使用numpy库的函数，

注意:做一个内存利用率测试也很有趣:)

示例代码

完整的代码在我的github存储库

#!/usr/bin/env python

import lib
import timeit
import sys
import math
import datetime

import prettyplotlib as ppl
import numpy as np

import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from prettyplotlib import brewer2mpl

primenumbers_gen = [
    'sieveOfEratosthenes',
    'ambi_sieve',
    'ambi_sieve_plain',
    'sundaram3',
    'sieve_wheel_30',
    'primesfrom3to',
    'primesfrom2to',
    'rwh_primes',
    'rwh_primes1',
    'rwh_primes2',
]

def human_format(num):
    # https://stackoverflow.com/questions/579310/formatting-long-numbers-as-strings-in-python?answertab=active#tab-top
    magnitude = 0
    while abs(num) >= 1000:
        magnitude += 1
        num /= 1000.0
    # add more suffixes if you need them
    return '%.2f%s' % (num, ['', 'K', 'M', 'G', 'T', 'P'][magnitude])


if __name__=='__main__':

    # Vars
    n = 10000000 # number itereration generator
    nbcol = 5 # For decompose prime number generator
    nb_benchloop = 3 # Eliminate false positive value during the test (bench average time)
    datetimeformat = '%Y-%m-%d %H:%M:%S.%f'
    config = 'from __main__ import n; import lib'
    primenumbers_gen = {
        'sieveOfEratosthenes': {'color': 'b'},
        'ambi_sieve': {'color': 'b'},
        'ambi_sieve_plain': {'color': 'b'},
         'sundaram3': {'color': 'b'},
        'sieve_wheel_30': {'color': 'b'},
# # #        'primesfrom2to': {'color': 'b'},
        'primesfrom3to': {'color': 'b'},
        # 'rwh_primes': {'color': 'b'},
        # 'rwh_primes1': {'color': 'b'},
        'rwh_primes2': {'color': 'b'},
    }


    # Get n in command line
    if len(sys.argv)>1:
        n = int(sys.argv[1])

    step = int(math.ceil(n / float(nbcol)))
    nbs = np.array([i * step for i in range(1, int(nbcol) + 1)])
    set2 = brewer2mpl.get_map('Paired', 'qualitative', 12).mpl_colors

    print datetime.datetime.now().strftime(datetimeformat)
    print("Compute prime number to %(n)s" % locals())
    print("")

    results = dict()
    for pgen in primenumbers_gen:
        results[pgen] = dict()
        benchtimes = list()
        for n in nbs:
            t = timeit.Timer("lib.%(pgen)s(n)" % locals(), setup=config)
            execute_times = t.repeat(repeat=nb_benchloop,number=1)
            benchtime = np.mean(execute_times)
            benchtimes.append(benchtime)
        results[pgen] = {'benchtimes':np.array(benchtimes)}

fig, ax = plt.subplots(1)
plt.ylabel('Computation time (in second)')
plt.xlabel('Numbers computed')
i = 0
for pgen in primenumbers_gen:

    bench = results[pgen]['benchtimes']
    avgs = np.divide(bench,nbs)
    avg = np.average(bench, weights=nbs)

    # Compute linear regression
    A = np.vstack([nbs, np.ones(len(nbs))]).T
    a, b = np.linalg.lstsq(A, nbs*avgs)[0]

    # Plot
    i += 1
    #label="%(pgen)s" % locals()
    #ppl.plot(nbs, nbs*avgs, label=label, lw=1, linestyle='--', color=set2[i % 12])
    label="%(pgen)s avg" % locals()
    ppl.plot(nbs, a * nbs + b, label=label, lw=2, color=set2[i % 12])
print datetime.datetime.now().strftime(datetimeformat)

ppl.legend(ax, loc='upper left', ncol=4)

# Change x axis label
ax.get_xaxis().get_major_formatter().set_scientific(False)
fig.canvas.draw()
labels = [human_format(int(item.get_text())) for item in ax.get_xticklabels()]

ax.set_xticklabels(labels)
ax = plt.gca()

plt.show()

使用Numpy实现的半筛子略有不同:

http://rebrained.com/?p=458

import math
import numpy
def prime6(upto):
    primes=numpy.arange(3,upto+1,2)
    isprime=numpy.ones((upto-1)/2,dtype=bool)
    for factor in primes[:int(math.sqrt(upto))]:
        if isprime[(factor-2)/2]: isprime[(factor*3-2)/2:(upto-1)/2:factor]=0
    return numpy.insert(primes[isprime],0,2)

有人能把这个和其他时间比较一下吗?在我的机器上，它似乎与其他Numpy半筛相当。

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)