This is the best algorithm I could come up.
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
Can it be made even faster?
This code has a flaw: Since numbers is an unordered set, there is no guarantee that numbers.pop() will remove the lowest number from the set. Nevertheless, it works (at least for me) for some input numbers:
>>> 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
This question is related to
python
math
optimization
primes
The answer is
It's instructive to write your own prime finding code, but it's also useful to have a fast reliable library at hand. I wrote a wrapper around the C++ library primesieve, named it primesieve-python
Try it pip install primesieve
import primesieve
primes = primesieve.generate_primes(10**8)
I'd be curious to see the speed compared.
A slightly different implementation of a half sieve using Numpy:
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)
Can someone compare this with the other timings? On my machine it seems pretty comparable to the other Numpy half-sieve.
If you have control over N, the very fastest way to list all primes is to precompute them. Seriously. Precomputing is a way overlooked optimization.
The fastest method I've tried so far is based on the Python cookbook erat2 function:
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
See this answer for an explanation of the speeding-up.
This is an elegant and simpler solution to find primes using a stored list. Starts with a 4 variables, you only have to test odd primes for divisors, and you only have to test up to a half of what number you are testing as a prime (no point in testing whether 9, 11, 13 divide into 17). It tests previously stored primes as divisors.`
# 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
I'm slow responding to this question but it seemed like a fun exercise. I'm using numpy which might be cheating and I doubt this method is the fastest but it should be clear. It sieves a Boolean array referring to its indices only and elicits prime numbers from the indices of all True values. No modulo needed.
import numpy as np
def ajs_primes3a(upto):
mat = np.ones((upto), dtype=bool)
mat[0] = False
mat[1] = False
mat[4::2] = False
for idx in range(3, int(upto ** 0.5)+1, 2):
mat[idx*2::idx] = False
return np.where(mat == True)[0]
I found a pure Python 2 prime generator here , in a comment by Willy Good, that is faster than rwh2_primes.
def primes235(limit):
yield 2; yield 3; yield 5
if limit < 7: return
modPrms = [7,11,13,17,19,23,29,31]
gaps = [4,2,4,2,4,6,2,6,4,2,4,2,4,6,2,6] # 2 loops for overflow
ndxs = [0,0,0,0,1,1,2,2,2,2,3,3,4,4,4,4,5,5,5,5,5,5,6,6,7,7,7,7,7,7]
lmtbf = (limit + 23) // 30 * 8 - 1 # integral number of wheels rounded up
lmtsqrt = (int(limit ** 0.5) - 7)
lmtsqrt = lmtsqrt // 30 * 8 + ndxs[lmtsqrt % 30] # round down on the wheel
buf = [True] * (lmtbf + 1)
for i in xrange(lmtsqrt + 1):
if buf[i]:
ci = i & 7; p = 30 * (i >> 3) + modPrms[ci]
s = p * p - 7; p8 = p << 3
for j in range(8):
c = s // 30 * 8 + ndxs[s % 30]
buf[c::p8] = [False] * ((lmtbf - c) // p8 + 1)
s += p * gaps[ci]; ci += 1
for i in xrange(lmtbf - 6 + (ndxs[(limit - 7) % 30])): # adjust for extras
if buf[i]: yield (30 * (i >> 3) + modPrms[i & 7])
My results:
$ time ./prime_rwh2.py 1e8
5761455 primes found < 1e8
real 0m3.201s
user 0m2.609s
sys 0m0.578s
$ time ./prime_wheel.py 1e8
5761455 primes found < 1e8
real 0m2.710s
user 0m2.469s
sys 0m0.219s
...on my recent midrange laptop (i5 8265U 1.6GHz) running Ubuntu on Win 10.
This is a mod 30 wheel sieve which skips multiples of 2, 3, and 5. It works great for me up to about 2.5e9, when my laptop starts running out of 8G RAM and swapping a lot.
I like mod 30 since it has only 8 remainders that aren't multiples of 2, 3, or 5. That enables using shifts and "&" for multiplication, division and mod, and should allow packing results for one mod 30 wheel into a byte. I have morphed Willy's code into a segmented mod 30 wheel sieve to eliminate the thrashing for big N and posted it here.
There is an even faster Javascript version which is segmented and uses a mod 210 wheel (no multiples of 2, 3, 5, or 7) by @GordonBGood with an in depth explanation that is useful to me.
This is a variation of the solution in the question that should be faster than what's in the question. It uses a static sieve of Eratosthenes with no other optimizations.
from typing import List
def list_primes(limit: int) -> List[int]:
primes = set(range(2, limit + 1))
for i in range(2, limit + 1):
if i in primes:
primes.difference_update(set(list(range(i, limit + 1, i))[1:]))
return sorted(primes)
>>> list_primes(100)
[2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97]
The simplest way I've found of doing this is:
primes = []
for n in range(low, high + 1):
if all(n % i for i in primes):
primes.append(n)
I've updated much of the code for Python 3 and threw it at perfplot (a project of mine) to see which is actually fastest. Turns out that, for large n, primesfrom{2,3}to takes the cake:
Code to reproduce the plot:
import perfplot
from math import sqrt, ceil
import numpy as np
import sympy
def rwh_primes(n):
# https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2068372/fastest-way-to-list-all-primes-below-n-in-python/3035188#3035188
""" 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]]
def rwh_primes1(n):
# https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2068372/fastest-way-to-list-all-primes-below-n-in-python/3035188#3035188
""" 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]]
def rwh_primes2(n):
# https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2068372/fastest-way-to-list-all-primes-below-n-in-python/3035188#3035188
"""Input n>=6, Returns a list of primes, 2 <= p < n"""
assert n >= 6
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]]
def sieve_wheel_30(N):
# http://zerovolt.com/?p=88
""" Returns a list of primes <= N using wheel criterion 2*3*5 = 30
Copyright 2009 by zerovolt.com
This code is free for non-commercial purposes, in which case you can just leave this comment as a credit for my work.
If you need this code for commercial purposes, please contact me by sending an email to: info [at] zerovolt [dot] com."""
__smallp = (
2,
3,
5,
7,
11,
13,
17,
19,
23,
29,
31,
37,
41,
43,
47,
53,
59,
61,
67,
71,
73,
79,
83,
89,
97,
101,
103,
107,
109,
113,
127,
131,
137,
139,
149,
151,
157,
163,
167,
173,
179,
181,
191,
193,
197,
199,
211,
223,
227,
229,
233,
239,
241,
251,
257,
263,
269,
271,
277,
281,
283,
293,
307,
311,
313,
317,
331,
337,
347,
349,
353,
359,
367,
373,
379,
383,
389,
397,
401,
409,
419,
421,
431,
433,
439,
443,
449,
457,
461,
463,
467,
479,
487,
491,
499,
503,
509,
521,
523,
541,
547,
557,
563,
569,
571,
577,
587,
593,
599,
601,
607,
613,
617,
619,
631,
641,
643,
647,
653,
659,
661,
673,
677,
683,
691,
701,
709,
719,
727,
733,
739,
743,
751,
757,
761,
769,
773,
787,
797,
809,
811,
821,
823,
827,
829,
839,
853,
857,
859,
863,
877,
881,
883,
887,
907,
911,
919,
929,
937,
941,
947,
953,
967,
971,
977,
983,
991,
997,
)
# wheel = (2, 3, 5)
const = 30
if N < 2:
return []
if N <= const:
pos = 0
while __smallp[pos] <= N:
pos += 1
return list(__smallp[:pos])
# make the offsets list
offsets = (7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 1)
# prepare the list
p = [2, 3, 5]
dim = 2 + N // const
tk1 = [True] * dim
tk7 = [True] * dim
tk11 = [True] * dim
tk13 = [True] * dim
tk17 = [True] * dim
tk19 = [True] * dim
tk23 = [True] * dim
tk29 = [True] * dim
tk1[0] = False
# help dictionary d
# d[a , b] = c ==> if I want to find the smallest useful multiple of (30*pos)+a
# on tkc, then I need the index given by the product of [(30*pos)+a][(30*pos)+b]
# in general. If b < a, I need [(30*pos)+a][(30*(pos+1))+b]
d = {}
for x in offsets:
for y in offsets:
res = (x * y) % const
if res in offsets:
d[(x, res)] = y
# another help dictionary: gives tkx calling tmptk[x]
tmptk = {1: tk1, 7: tk7, 11: tk11, 13: tk13, 17: tk17, 19: tk19, 23: tk23, 29: tk29}
pos, prime, lastadded, stop = 0, 0, 0, int(ceil(sqrt(N)))
# inner functions definition
def del_mult(tk, start, step):
for k in range(start, len(tk), step):
tk[k] = False
# end of inner functions definition
cpos = const * pos
while prime < stop:
# 30k + 7
if tk7[pos]:
prime = cpos + 7
p.append(prime)
lastadded = 7
for off in offsets:
tmp = d[(7, off)]
start = (
(pos + prime)
if off == 7
else (prime * (const * (pos + 1 if tmp < 7 else 0) + tmp)) // const
)
del_mult(tmptk[off], start, prime)
# 30k + 11
if tk11[pos]:
prime = cpos + 11
p.append(prime)
lastadded = 11
for off in offsets:
tmp = d[(11, off)]
start = (
(pos + prime)
if off == 11
else (prime * (const * (pos + 1 if tmp < 11 else 0) + tmp)) // const
)
del_mult(tmptk[off], start, prime)
# 30k + 13
if tk13[pos]:
prime = cpos + 13
p.append(prime)
lastadded = 13
for off in offsets:
tmp = d[(13, off)]
start = (
(pos + prime)
if off == 13
else (prime * (const * (pos + 1 if tmp < 13 else 0) + tmp)) // const
)
del_mult(tmptk[off], start, prime)
# 30k + 17
if tk17[pos]:
prime = cpos + 17
p.append(prime)
lastadded = 17
for off in offsets:
tmp = d[(17, off)]
start = (
(pos + prime)
if off == 17
else (prime * (const * (pos + 1 if tmp < 17 else 0) + tmp)) // const
)
del_mult(tmptk[off], start, prime)
# 30k + 19
if tk19[pos]:
prime = cpos + 19
p.append(prime)
lastadded = 19
for off in offsets:
tmp = d[(19, off)]
start = (
(pos + prime)
if off == 19
else (prime * (const * (pos + 1 if tmp < 19 else 0) + tmp)) // const
)
del_mult(tmptk[off], start, prime)
# 30k + 23
if tk23[pos]:
prime = cpos + 23
p.append(prime)
lastadded = 23
for off in offsets:
tmp = d[(23, off)]
start = (
(pos + prime)
if off == 23
else (prime * (const * (pos + 1 if tmp < 23 else 0) + tmp)) // const
)
del_mult(tmptk[off], start, prime)
# 30k + 29
if tk29[pos]:
prime = cpos + 29
p.append(prime)
lastadded = 29
for off in offsets:
tmp = d[(29, off)]
start = (
(pos + prime)
if off == 29
else (prime * (const * (pos + 1 if tmp < 29 else 0) + tmp)) // const
)
del_mult(tmptk[off], start, prime)
# now we go back to top tk1, so we need to increase pos by 1
pos += 1
cpos = const * pos
# 30k + 1
if tk1[pos]:
prime = cpos + 1
p.append(prime)
lastadded = 1
for off in offsets:
tmp = d[(1, off)]
start = (
(pos + prime)
if off == 1
else (prime * (const * pos + tmp)) // const
)
del_mult(tmptk[off], start, prime)
# time to add remaining primes
# if lastadded == 1, remove last element and start adding them from tk1
# this way we don't need an "if" within the last while
if lastadded == 1:
p.pop()
# now complete for every other possible prime
while pos < len(tk1):
cpos = const * pos
if tk1[pos]:
p.append(cpos + 1)
if tk7[pos]:
p.append(cpos + 7)
if tk11[pos]:
p.append(cpos + 11)
if tk13[pos]:
p.append(cpos + 13)
if tk17[pos]:
p.append(cpos + 17)
if tk19[pos]:
p.append(cpos + 19)
if tk23[pos]:
p.append(cpos + 23)
if tk29[pos]:
p.append(cpos + 29)
pos += 1
# remove exceeding if present
pos = len(p) - 1
while p[pos] > N:
pos -= 1
if pos < len(p) - 1:
del p[pos + 1 :]
# return p list
return p
def sieve_of_eratosthenes(n):
"""sieveOfEratosthenes(n): return the list of the primes < n."""
# Code from: <[email protected]>, Nov 30 2006
# http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/msg/f1f10ced88c68c2d
if n <= 2:
return []
sieve = list(range(3, n, 2))
top = len(sieve)
for si in sieve:
if si:
bottom = (si * si - 3) // 2
if bottom >= top:
break
sieve[bottom::si] = [0] * -((bottom - top) // si)
return [2] + [el for el in sieve if el]
def sieve_of_atkin(end):
"""return a list of all the prime numbers <end using the Sieve of Atkin."""
# Code by Steve Krenzel, <[email protected]>, improved
# Code: https://web.archive.org/web/20080324064651/http://krenzel.info/?p=83
# Info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sieve_of_Atkin
assert end > 0
lng = (end - 1) // 2
sieve = [False] * (lng + 1)
x_max, x2, xd = int(sqrt((end - 1) / 4.0)), 0, 4
for xd in range(4, 8 * x_max + 2, 8):
x2 += xd
y_max = int(sqrt(end - x2))
n, n_diff = x2 + y_max * y_max, (y_max << 1) - 1
if not (n & 1):
n -= n_diff
n_diff -= 2
for d in range((n_diff - 1) << 1, -1, -8):
m = n % 12
if m == 1 or m == 5:
m = n >> 1
sieve[m] = not sieve[m]
n -= d
x_max, x2, xd = int(sqrt((end - 1) / 3.0)), 0, 3
for xd in range(3, 6 * x_max + 2, 6):
x2 += xd
y_max = int(sqrt(end - x2))
n, n_diff = x2 + y_max * y_max, (y_max << 1) - 1
if not (n & 1):
n -= n_diff
n_diff -= 2
for d in range((n_diff - 1) << 1, -1, -8):
if n % 12 == 7:
m = n >> 1
sieve[m] = not sieve[m]
n -= d
x_max, y_min, x2, xd = int((2 + sqrt(4 - 8 * (1 - end))) / 4), -1, 0, 3
for x in range(1, x_max + 1):
x2 += xd
xd += 6
if x2 >= end:
y_min = (((int(ceil(sqrt(x2 - end))) - 1) << 1) - 2) << 1
n, n_diff = ((x * x + x) << 1) - 1, (((x - 1) << 1) - 2) << 1
for d in range(n_diff, y_min, -8):
if n % 12 == 11:
m = n >> 1
sieve[m] = not sieve[m]
n += d
primes = [2, 3]
if end <= 3:
return primes[: max(0, end - 2)]
for n in range(5 >> 1, (int(sqrt(end)) + 1) >> 1):
if sieve[n]:
primes.append((n << 1) + 1)
aux = (n << 1) + 1
aux *= aux
for k in range(aux, end, 2 * aux):
sieve[k >> 1] = False
s = int(sqrt(end)) + 1
if s % 2 == 0:
s += 1
primes.extend([i for i in range(s, end, 2) if sieve[i >> 1]])
return primes
def ambi_sieve_plain(n):
s = list(range(3, n, 2))
for m in range(3, int(n ** 0.5) + 1, 2):
if s[(m - 3) // 2]:
for t in range((m * m - 3) // 2, (n >> 1) - 1, m):
s[t] = 0
return [2] + [t for t in s if t > 0]
def sundaram3(max_n):
# https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2068372/fastest-way-to-list-all-primes-below-n-in-python/2073279#2073279
numbers = range(3, max_n + 1, 2)
half = (max_n) // 2
initial = 4
for step in range(3, max_n + 1, 2):
for i in range(initial, half, step):
numbers[i - 1] = 0
initial += 2 * (step + 1)
if initial > half:
return [2] + filter(None, numbers)
# Using Numpy:
def ambi_sieve(n):
# http://tommih.blogspot.com/2009/04/fast-prime-number-generator.html
s = np.arange(3, n, 2)
for m in range(3, int(n ** 0.5) + 1, 2):
if s[(m - 3) // 2]:
s[(m * m - 3) // 2::m] = 0
return np.r_[2, s[s > 0]]
def primesfrom3to(n):
# https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2068372/fastest-way-to-list-all-primes-below-n-in-python/3035188#3035188
""" Returns an array of primes, p < n """
assert n >= 2
sieve = np.ones(n // 2, dtype=np.bool)
for i in range(3, int(n ** 0.5) + 1, 2):
if sieve[i // 2]:
sieve[i * i // 2::i] = False
return np.r_[2, 2 * np.nonzero(sieve)[0][1::] + 1]
def primesfrom2to(n):
# https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2068372/fastest-way-to-list-all-primes-below-n-in-python/3035188#3035188
""" Input n>=6, Returns an array of primes, 2 <= p < n """
assert n >= 6
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)]
def sympy_sieve(n):
return list(sympy.sieve.primerange(1, n))
perfplot.save(
"prime.png",
setup=lambda n: n,
kernels=[
rwh_primes,
rwh_primes1,
rwh_primes2,
sieve_wheel_30,
sieve_of_eratosthenes,
sieve_of_atkin,
# ambi_sieve_plain,
# sundaram3,
ambi_sieve,
primesfrom3to,
primesfrom2to,
sympy_sieve,
],
n_range=[2 ** k for k in range(3, 25)],
logx=True,
logy=True,
xlabel="n",
)
Here is two updated (pure Python 3.6) versions of one of the fastest functions,
from itertools import compress
def rwh_primes1v1(n):
""" Returns a list of primes < n for n > 2 """
sieve = bytearray([True]) * (n//2)
for i in range(3,int(n**0.5)+1,2):
if sieve[i//2]:
sieve[i*i//2::i] = bytearray((n-i*i-1)//(2*i)+1)
return [2,*compress(range(3,n,2), sieve[1:])]
def rwh_primes1v2(n):
""" Returns a list of primes < n for n > 2 """
sieve = bytearray([True]) * (n//2+1)
for i in range(1,int(n**0.5)//2+1):
if sieve[i]:
sieve[2*i*(i+1)::2*i+1] = bytearray((n//2-2*i*(i+1))//(2*i+1)+1)
return [2,*compress(range(3,n,2), sieve[1:])]
There's a pretty neat sample from the Python Cookbook here -- the fastest version proposed on that URL is:
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
so that would give
def get_primes_erat(n):
return list(itertools.takewhile(lambda p: p<n, erat2()))
Measuring at the shell prompt (as I prefer to do) with this code in pri.py, I observe:
$ 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
so it looks like the Cookbook solution is over twice as fast.
I know the competition is closed for some years. …
Nonetheless this is my suggestion for a pure python prime sieve, based on omitting the multiples of 2, 3 and 5 by using appropriate steps while processing the sieve forward. Nonetheless it is actually slower for N<10^9 than @Robert William Hanks superior solutions rwh_primes2 and rwh_primes1. By using a ctypes.c_ushort sieve array above 1.5* 10^8 it is somehow adaptive to memory limits.
10^6
$ python -mtimeit -s"import primeSieveSpeedComp" "primeSieveSpeedComp.primeSieveSeq(1000000)" 10 loops, best of 3: 46.7 msec per loop
to compare:$ python -mtimeit -s"import primeSieveSpeedComp" "primeSieveSpeedComp.rwh_primes1(1000000)" 10 loops, best of 3: 43.2 msec per loop to compare: $ python -m timeit -s"import primeSieveSpeedComp" "primeSieveSpeedComp.rwh_primes2(1000000)" 10 loops, best of 3: 34.5 msec per loop
10^7
$ python -mtimeit -s"import primeSieveSpeedComp" "primeSieveSpeedComp.primeSieveSeq(10000000)" 10 loops, best of 3: 530 msec per loop
to compare:$ python -mtimeit -s"import primeSieveSpeedComp" "primeSieveSpeedComp.rwh_primes1(10000000)" 10 loops, best of 3: 494 msec per loop to compare: $ python -m timeit -s"import primeSieveSpeedComp" "primeSieveSpeedComp.rwh_primes2(10000000)" 10 loops, best of 3: 375 msec per loop
10^8
$ python -mtimeit -s"import primeSieveSpeedComp" "primeSieveSpeedComp.primeSieveSeq(100000000)" 10 loops, best of 3: 5.55 sec per loop
to compare: $ python -mtimeit -s"import primeSieveSpeedComp" "primeSieveSpeedComp.rwh_primes1(100000000)" 10 loops, best of 3: 5.33 sec per loop to compare: $ python -m timeit -s"import primeSieveSpeedComp" "primeSieveSpeedComp.rwh_primes2(100000000)" 10 loops, best of 3: 3.95 sec per loop
10^9
$ python -mtimeit -s"import primeSieveSpeedComp" "primeSieveSpeedComp.primeSieveSeq(1000000000)" 10 loops, best of 3: 61.2 sec per loop
to compare: $ python -mtimeit -n 3 -s"import primeSieveSpeedComp" "primeSieveSpeedComp.rwh_primes1(1000000000)" 3 loops, best of 3: 97.8 sec per loop
to compare: $ python -m timeit -s"import primeSieveSpeedComp" "primeSieveSpeedComp.rwh_primes2(1000000000)" 10 loops, best of 3: 41.9 sec per loop
You may copy the code below into ubuntus primeSieveSpeedComp to review this tests.
def primeSieveSeq(MAX_Int):
if MAX_Int > 5*10**8:
import ctypes
int16Array = ctypes.c_ushort * (MAX_Int >> 1)
sieve = int16Array()
#print 'uses ctypes "unsigned short int Array"'
else:
sieve = (MAX_Int >> 1) * [False]
#print 'uses python list() of long long int'
if MAX_Int < 10**8:
sieve[4::3] = [True]*((MAX_Int - 8)/6+1)
sieve[12::5] = [True]*((MAX_Int - 24)/10+1)
r = [2, 3, 5]
n = 0
for i in xrange(int(MAX_Int**0.5)/30+1):
n += 3
if not sieve[n]:
n2 = (n << 1) + 1
r.append(n2)
n2q = (n2**2) >> 1
sieve[n2q::n2] = [True]*(((MAX_Int >> 1) - n2q - 1) / n2 + 1)
n += 2
if not sieve[n]:
n2 = (n << 1) + 1
r.append(n2)
n2q = (n2**2) >> 1
sieve[n2q::n2] = [True]*(((MAX_Int >> 1) - n2q - 1) / n2 + 1)
n += 1
if not sieve[n]:
n2 = (n << 1) + 1
r.append(n2)
n2q = (n2**2) >> 1
sieve[n2q::n2] = [True]*(((MAX_Int >> 1) - n2q - 1) / n2 + 1)
n += 2
if not sieve[n]:
n2 = (n << 1) + 1
r.append(n2)
n2q = (n2**2) >> 1
sieve[n2q::n2] = [True]*(((MAX_Int >> 1) - n2q - 1) / n2 + 1)
n += 1
if not sieve[n]:
n2 = (n << 1) + 1
r.append(n2)
n2q = (n2**2) >> 1
sieve[n2q::n2] = [True]*(((MAX_Int >> 1) - n2q - 1) / n2 + 1)
n += 2
if not sieve[n]:
n2 = (n << 1) + 1
r.append(n2)
n2q = (n2**2) >> 1
sieve[n2q::n2] = [True]*(((MAX_Int >> 1) - n2q - 1) / n2 + 1)
n += 3
if not sieve[n]:
n2 = (n << 1) + 1
r.append(n2)
n2q = (n2**2) >> 1
sieve[n2q::n2] = [True]*(((MAX_Int >> 1) - n2q - 1) / n2 + 1)
n += 1
if not sieve[n]:
n2 = (n << 1) + 1
r.append(n2)
n2q = (n2**2) >> 1
sieve[n2q::n2] = [True]*(((MAX_Int >> 1) - n2q - 1) / n2 + 1)
if MAX_Int < 10**8:
return [2, 3, 5]+[(p << 1) + 1 for p in [n for n in xrange(3, MAX_Int >> 1) if not sieve[n]]]
n = n >> 1
try:
for i in xrange((MAX_Int-2*n)/30 + 1):
n += 3
if not sieve[n]:
r.append((n << 1) + 1)
n += 2
if not sieve[n]:
r.append((n << 1) + 1)
n += 1
if not sieve[n]:
r.append((n << 1) + 1)
n += 2
if not sieve[n]:
r.append((n << 1) + 1)
n += 1
if not sieve[n]:
r.append((n << 1) + 1)
n += 2
if not sieve[n]:
r.append((n << 1) + 1)
n += 3
if not sieve[n]:
r.append((n << 1) + 1)
n += 1
if not sieve[n]:
r.append((n << 1) + 1)
except:
pass
return r
For 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]]
I collected several prime number sieves over time. The fastest on my computer is this:
from time import time
# 175 ms for all the primes up to the value 10**6
def primes_sieve(limit):
a = [True] * limit
a[0] = a[1] = False
#a[2] = True
for n in xrange(4, limit, 2):
a[n] = False
root_limit = int(limit**.5)+1
for i in xrange(3,root_limit):
if a[i]:
for n in xrange(i*i, limit, 2*i):
a[n] = False
return a
LIMIT = 10**6
s=time()
primes = primes_sieve(LIMIT)
print time()-s
For the fastest code, the numpy solution is the best. For purely academic reasons, though, I'm posting my pure python version, which is a bit less than 50% faster than the cookbook version posted above. Since I make the entire list in memory, you need enough space to hold everything, but it seems to scale fairly well.
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)
And the results:
>>>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
Fastest prime sieve in Pure Python:
from itertools import compress
def half_sieve(n):
"""
Returns a list of prime numbers less than `n`.
"""
if n <= 2:
return []
sieve = bytearray([True]) * (n // 2)
for i in range(3, int(n ** 0.5) + 1, 2):
if sieve[i // 2]:
sieve[i * i // 2::i] = bytearray((n - i * i - 1) // (2 * i) + 1)
primes = list(compress(range(1, n, 2), sieve))
primes[0] = 2
return primes
I optimised Sieve of Eratosthenes for speed and memory.
Benchmark
from time import clock
import platform
def benchmark(iterations, limit):
start = clock()
for x in range(iterations):
half_sieve(limit)
end = clock() - start
print(f'{end/iterations:.4f} seconds for primes < {limit}')
if __name__ == '__main__':
print(platform.python_version())
print(platform.platform())
print(platform.processor())
it = 10
for pw in range(4, 9):
benchmark(it, 10**pw)
Output
>>> 3.6.7
>>> Windows-10-10.0.17763-SP0
>>> Intel64 Family 6 Model 78 Stepping 3, GenuineIntel
>>> 0.0003 seconds for primes < 10000
>>> 0.0021 seconds for primes < 100000
>>> 0.0204 seconds for primes < 1000000
>>> 0.2389 seconds for primes < 10000000
>>> 2.6702 seconds for primes < 100000000
Faster & more memory-wise pure Python code:
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]]
or starting with half sieve
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]]
Faster & more memory-wise numpy code:
import numpy
def primesfrom3to(n):
""" Returns a array of primes, 3 <= p < n """
sieve = numpy.ones(n//2, dtype=numpy.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
a faster variation starting with a third of a sieve:
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=numpy.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)]
A (hard-to-code) pure-python version of the above code would be:
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]]
Unfortunately pure-python don't adopt the simpler and faster numpy way of doing assignment, and calling len() inside the loop as in [False]*len(sieve[((k*k)//3)::2*k]) is too slow. So I had to improvise to correct input (& avoid more math) and do some extreme (& painful) math-magic.
Personally I think it is a shame that numpy (which is so widely used) is not part of Python standard library, and that the improvements in syntax and speed seem to be completely overlooked by Python developers.
The algorithm is fast, but it has a serious flaw:
>>> sorted(get_primes(530))
[2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73,
79, 83, 89, 97, 101, 103, 107, 109, 113, 127, 131, 137, 139, 149, 151, 157, 163,
167, 173, 179, 181, 191, 193, 197, 199, 211, 223, 227, 229, 233, 239, 241, 251,
257, 263, 269, 271, 277, 281, 283, 293, 307, 311, 313, 317, 331, 337, 347, 349,
353, 359, 367, 373, 379, 383, 389, 397, 401, 409, 419, 421, 431, 433, 439, 443,
449, 457, 461, 463, 467, 479, 487, 491, 499, 503, 509, 521, 523, 527, 529]
>>> 17*31
527
>>> 23*23
529
You assume that numbers.pop() would return the smallest number in the set, but this is not guaranteed at all. Sets are unordered and pop() removes and returns an arbitrary element, so it cannot be used to select the next prime from the remaining numbers.
I may be late to the party but will have to add my own code for this. It uses approximately n/2 in space because we don't need to store even numbers and I also make use of the bitarray python module, further draStically cutting down on memory consumption and enabling computing all primes up to 1,000,000,000
from bitarray import bitarray
def primes_to(n):
size = n//2
sieve = bitarray(size)
sieve.setall(1)
limit = int(n**0.5)
for i in range(1,limit):
if sieve[i]:
val = 2*i+1
sieve[(i+i*val)::val] = 0
return [2] + [2*i+1 for i, v in enumerate(sieve) if v and i > 0]
python -m timeit -n10 -s "import euler" "euler.primes_to(1000000000)"
10 loops, best of 3: 46.5 sec per loop
This was run on a 64bit 2.4GHZ MAC OSX 10.8.3
It's all written and tested. So there is no need to reinvent the wheel.
python -m timeit -r10 -s"from sympy import sieve" "primes = list(sieve.primerange(1, 10**6))"
gives us a record breaking 12.2 msec!
10 loops, best of 10: 12.2 msec per loop
If this is not fast enough, you can try PyPy:
pypy -m timeit -r10 -s"from sympy import sieve" "primes = list(sieve.primerange(1, 10**6))"
which results in:
10 loops, best of 10: 2.03 msec per loop
The answer with 247 up-votes lists 15.9 ms for the best solution. Compare this!!!
This is the way you can compare with others.
# You have to list primes upto n
nums = xrange(2, n)
for i in range(2, 10):
nums = filter(lambda s: s==i or s%i, nums)
print nums
So simple...
First time using python, so some of the methods I use in this might seem a bit cumbersome. I just straight converted my c++ code to python and this is what I have (albeit a tad bit slowww in python)
#!/usr/bin/env python
import time
def GetPrimes(n):
Sieve = [1 for x in xrange(n)]
Done = False
w = 3
while not Done:
for q in xrange (3, n, 2):
Prod = w*q
if Prod < n:
Sieve[Prod] = 0
else:
break
if w > (n/2):
Done = True
w += 2
return Sieve
start = time.clock()
d = 10000000
Primes = GetPrimes(d)
count = 1 #This is for 2
for x in xrange (3, d, 2):
if Primes[x]:
count+=1
elapsed = (time.clock() - start)
print "\nFound", count, "primes in", elapsed, "seconds!\n"
pythonw Primes.py
Found 664579 primes in 12.799119 seconds!
#!/usr/bin/env python
import time
def GetPrimes2(n):
Sieve = [1 for x in xrange(n)]
for q in xrange (3, n, 2):
k = q
for y in xrange(k*3, n, k*2):
Sieve[y] = 0
return Sieve
start = time.clock()
d = 10000000
Primes = GetPrimes2(d)
count = 1 #This is for 2
for x in xrange (3, d, 2):
if Primes[x]:
count+=1
elapsed = (time.clock() - start)
print "\nFound", count, "primes in", elapsed, "seconds!\n"
pythonw Primes2.py
Found 664579 primes in 10.230172 seconds!
#!/usr/bin/env python
import time
def GetPrimes3(n):
Sieve = [1 for x in xrange(n)]
for q in xrange (3, n, 2):
k = q
for y in xrange(k*k, n, k << 1):
Sieve[y] = 0
return Sieve
start = time.clock()
d = 10000000
Primes = GetPrimes3(d)
count = 1 #This is for 2
for x in xrange (3, d, 2):
if Primes[x]:
count+=1
elapsed = (time.clock() - start)
print "\nFound", count, "primes in", elapsed, "seconds!\n"
python Primes2.py
Found 664579 primes in 7.113776 seconds!
For truly fastest solution with sufficiently large N would be to download a pre-calculated list of primes, store it as a tuple and do something like:
for pos,i in enumerate(primes):
if i > N:
print primes[:pos]
If N > primes[-1] only then calculate more primes and save the new list in your code, so next time it is equally as fast.
Always think outside the box.
If you accept itertools but not numpy, here is an adaptation of rwh_primes2 for Python 3 that runs about twice as fast on my machine. The only substantial change is using a bytearray instead of a list for the boolean, and using compress instead of a list comprehension to build the final list. (I'd add this as a comment like moarningsun if I were able.)
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
Comparisons:
>>> 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
If you don't want to reinvent the wheel, you can install the symbolic maths library sympy (yes it's Python 3 compatible)
pip install sympy
And use the primerange function
from sympy import sieve
primes = list(sieve.primerange(1, 10**6))
Here's the code I normally use to generate primes in Python:
$ python -mtimeit -s'import sieve' 'sieve.sieve(1000000)'
10 loops, best of 3: 445 msec per loop
$ cat sieve.py
from math import sqrt
def sieve(size):
prime=[True]*size
rng=xrange
limit=int(sqrt(size))
for i in rng(3,limit+1,+2):
if prime[i]:
prime[i*i::+i]=[False]*len(prime[i*i::+i])
return [2]+[i for i in rng(3,size,+2) if prime[i]]
if __name__=='__main__':
print sieve(100)
It can't compete with the faster solutions posted here, but at least it is pure python.
Thanks for posting this question. I really learnt a lot today.
Using Sundaram's Sieve, I think I broke pure-Python's record:
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
Here is a numpy version of Sieve of Eratosthenes having both good complexity (lower than sorting an array of length n) and vectorization. Compared to @unutbu times this just as fast as the packages with 46 microsecons to find all primes below a million.
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]
Timings:
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
A deterministic implementation of Miller-Rabin's Primality test on the assumption that N < 9,080,191
import sys
import random
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 xrange(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):
for a in [2, 3, 37, 73]:
if not miller_rabin_pass(a, n):
return False
return True
n = int(sys.argv[1])
primes = [2]
for p in range(3,n,2):
if miller_rabin(p):
primes.append(p)
print len(primes)
According to the article on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller–Rabin_primality_test) testing N < 9,080,191 for a = 2,3,37, and 73 is enough to decide whether N is composite or not.
And I adapted the source code from the probabilistic implementation of original Miller-Rabin's test found here: http://en.literateprograms.org/Miller-Rabin_primality_test_(Python)
Here is an interesting technique to generate prime numbers (yet not the most efficient) using python's list comprehensions:
noprimes = [j for i in range(2, 8) for j in range(i*2, 50, i)]
primes = [x for x in range(2, 50) if x not in noprimes]
You can find the example and some explanations right here
Sorry to bother but erat2() has a serious flaw in the algorithm.
While searching for the next composite, we need to test odd numbers only. q,p both are odd; then q+p is even and doesn't need to be tested, but q+2*p is always odd. This eliminates the "if even" test in the while loop condition and saves about 30% of the runtime.
While we're at it: instead of the elegant 'D.pop(q,None)' get and delete method use 'if q in D: p=D[q],del D[q]' which is twice as fast! At least on my machine (P3-1Ghz). So I suggest this implementation of this clever algorithm:
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
I tested some unutbu's functions, i computed it with hungred millions number
The winners are the functions that use numpy library,
Note: It would also interesting make a memory utilization test :)
Sample code
Complete code on my github repository
#!/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()
My guess is that the fastest of all ways is to hard code the primes in your code.
So why not just write a slow script that generates another source file that has all numbers hardwired in it, and then import that source file when you run your actual program.
Of course, this works only if you know the upper bound of N at compile time, but thus is the case for (almost) all project Euler problems.
PS: I might be wrong though iff parsing the source with hard-wired primes is slower than computing them in the first place, but as far I know Python runs from compiled .pyc files so reading a binary array with all primes up to N should be bloody fast in that case.
Source: Stackoverflow.com