| # | User | Rating |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Benq | 3676 |
| 2 | Kevin114514 | 3657 |
| 3 | jiangly | 3638 |
| 4 | turmax | 3442 |
| 5 | tourist | 3380 |
| 6 | Um_nik | 3353 |
| 7 | strapple | 3350 |
| 8 | squareOf105 | 3346 |
| 9 | heuristica | 3322 |
| 10 | maroonrk | 3310 |
| # | User | Contrib. |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Qingyu | 158 |
| 2 | nik_exists | 151 |
| 3 | maspy | 150 |
| 4 | AmShZ | 144 |
| 5 | Um_nik | 143 |
| 6 | Errichto | 139 |
| 7 | adamant | 137 |
| 8 | BledDest | 135 |
| 9 | maroonrk | 133 |
| 10 | qwexd | 130 |
| Name |
|---|



First of all you can try to use linear prime sieve. Secondly, are you sure that your while does not work too long?
The loop's working for max ~14000 iterations among the values I randomly tested for.
Please post your code without CE.
Here is the code. I've also improved the sieve.
Have you tried the test:
104
109
...
109 ?
I've tried for 782690999 instead of 1e9 and its timing out. Takes ~15s