正如许多人所注意到的，快速排序的平均情况性能要比归并排序快。但这只适用于假设按需访问任何内存段的时间为常数的情况。

在RAM中，这种假设通常不太坏(由于缓存的存在，这种假设并不总是正确的，但也不太坏)。然而，如果你的数据结构足够大，可以存储在磁盘上，那么快速排序就会因为磁盘平均每秒进行200次随机查找而被扼杀。但是，同样的磁盘在按顺序每秒读取或写入兆字节的数据方面没有任何问题。这正是归并排序所做的。

因此，如果数据必须在磁盘上排序，你真的，真的想使用归并排序的一些变体。(通常你快速排序子列表，然后开始将它们合并到某个大小阈值以上。)

Furthermore if you have to do anything with datasets of that size, think hard about how to avoid seeks to disk. For instance this is why it is standard advice that you drop indexes before doing large data loads in databases, and then rebuild the index later. Maintaining the index during the load means constantly seeking to disk. By contrast if you drop the indexes, then the database can rebuild the index by first sorting the information to be dealt with (using a mergesort of course!) and then loading it into a BTREE datastructure for the index. (BTREEs are naturally kept in order, so you can load one from a sorted dataset with few seeks to disk.)

在许多情况下，了解如何避免磁盘寻道使我将数据处理工作花费数小时而不是数天或数周。

快速排序是一种就地排序算法，因此它更适合于数组。另一方面，归并排序需要额外的O(N)存储空间，更适合于链表。

与数组不同，在喜欢列表中，我们可以在中间插入O(1)空间和O(1)时间的项，因此归并排序中的归并操作可以在不需要任何额外空间的情况下实现。但是，为数组分配和取消分配额外空间会对归并排序的运行时间产生不利影响。归并排序也有利于链表，因为数据是按顺序访问的，没有太多的随机内存访问。

另一方面，快速排序需要大量的随机内存访问，而使用数组，我们可以直接访问内存，而不需要像链表那样进行任何遍历。同样，快速排序用于数组时具有良好的引用局部性，因为数组连续存储在内存中。

尽管这两种排序算法的平均复杂度都是O(NlogN)，但通常人们在执行普通任务时使用数组进行存储，因此快速排序应该是首选算法。

编辑:我刚刚发现归并排序最差/最好/平均情况总是nlogn，但快速排序可以从n2(最坏的情况下，元素已经排序)到nlogn(平均/最佳情况下，pivot总是将数组分为两半)。

答案将略微倾向于快速排序w.r.t的变化带来的DualPivotQuickSort的基本值。它在JAVA 7中用于在JAVA .util. arrays中排序

It is proved that for the Dual-Pivot Quicksort the average number of
comparisons is 2*n*ln(n), the average number of swaps is 0.8*n*ln(n),
whereas classical Quicksort algorithm has 2*n*ln(n) and 1*n*ln(n)
respectively. Full mathematical proof see in attached proof.txt
and proof_add.txt files. Theoretical results are also confirmed
by experimental counting of the operations.

您可以在这里找到JAVA7实现- http://grepcode.com/file/repository.grepcode.com/java/root/jdk/openjdk/7-b147/java/util/Arrays.java

关于DualPivotQuickSort的进一步精彩阅读- http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.openjdk.core-libs.devel/2628

One of the reason is more philosophical. Quicksort is Top->Down philosophy. With n elements to sort, there are n! possibilities. With 2 partitions of m & n-m which are mutually exclusive, the number of possibilities go down in several orders of magnitude. m! * (n-m)! is smaller by several orders than n! alone. imagine 5! vs 3! *2!. 5! has 10 times more possibilities than 2 partitions of 2 & 3 each . and extrapolate to 1 million factorial vs 900K!*100K! vs. So instead of worrying about establishing any order within a range or a partition,just establish order at a broader level in partitions and reduce the possibilities within a partition. Any order established earlier within a range will be disturbed later if the partitions themselves are not mutually exclusive.

任何自下而上的排序方法，如归并排序或堆排序，就像工人或雇员的方法一样，人们很早就开始在微观层面进行比较。但是，一旦在它们之间发现了一个元素，这个顺序就必然会丢失。这些方法非常稳定和可预测，但要做一定量的额外工作。

Quick Sort is like Managerial approach where one is not initially concerned about any order , only about meeting a broad criterion with No regard for order. Then the partitions are narrowed until you get a sorted set. The real challenge in Quicksort is in finding a partition or criterion in the dark when you know nothing about the elements to sort. That is why we either need to spend some effort to find a median value or pick 1 at random or some arbitrary "Managerial" approach . To find a perfect median can take significant amount of effort and leads to a stupid bottom up approach again. So Quicksort says just a pick a random pivot and hope that it will be somewhere in the middle or do some work to find median of 3 , 5 or something more to find a better median but do not plan to be perfect & don't waste any time in initially ordering. That seems to do well if you are lucky or sometimes degrades to n^2 when you don't get a median but just take a chance. Any way data is random. right. So I agree more with the top ->down logical approach of quicksort & it turns out that the chance it takes about pivot selection & comparisons that it saves earlier seems to work better more times than any meticulous & thorough stable bottom ->up approach like merge sort. But

快速排序和合并排序的小增加。

它还可以依赖于排序项的类型。如果访问项、交换和比较不是简单的操作，就像比较平面内存中的整数一样，那么归并排序可能是更可取的算法。

例如，我们在远程服务器上使用网络协议对项目进行排序。

而且，在像“链表”这样的自定义容器中，也没有快速排序的好处。 1. 对链表进行归并排序，不需要额外的内存。 2. 快速排序中对元素的访问不是顺序的(在内存中)

快速排序有O(n2)最差情况运行时和O(nlogn)平均情况运行时。然而，在许多情况下，它优于归并排序，因为许多因素影响算法的运行时，并且，当把它们放在一起时，快速排序胜出。

In particular, the often-quoted runtime of sorting algorithms refers to the number of comparisons or the number of swaps necessary to perform to sort the data. This is indeed a good measure of performance, especially since it’s independent of the underlying hardware design. However, other things – such as locality of reference (i.e. do we read lots of elements which are probably in cache?) – also play an important role on current hardware. Quicksort in particular requires little additional space and exhibits good cache locality, and this makes it faster than merge sort in many cases.

此外，通过使用适当的枢轴选择，几乎完全避免快速排序的最坏情况运行时间O(n2)是非常容易的——比如随机选择它(这是一个很好的策略)。

在实践中，许多现代的快速排序实现(特别是libstdc++的std::sort)实际上是introsort，其理论上的最差情况是O(nlogn)，与归并排序相同。它通过限制递归深度，并在超过logn时切换到不同的算法(heapsort)来实现这一点。