我在一次面试中被问到这个问题。它们都是O(nlogn),但大多数人使用快速排序而不是归并排序。为什么呢?
当前回答
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。
其他回答
为什么快速排序很好?
QuickSort takes N^2 in worst case and NlogN average case. The worst case occurs when data is sorted. This can be mitigated by random shuffle before sorting is started. QuickSort doesn't takes extra memory that is taken by merge sort. If the dataset is large and there are identical items, complexity of Quicksort reduces by using 3 way partition. More the no of identical items better the sort. If all items are identical, it sorts in linear time. [This is default implementation in most libraries]
快速排序总是比归并排序好吗?
不是真的。
归并排序是稳定的,但快速排序不是。所以如果你需要输出的稳定性,你可以使用归并排序。在许多实际应用中需要稳定性。 现在内存很便宜。因此,如果Mergesort使用的额外内存对您的应用程序不是至关重要的,那么使用Mergesort也没有什么害处。
注意:在java中,Arrays.sort()函数对基本数据类型使用快速排序,对对象数据类型使用归并排序。因为对象消耗内存开销,所以为归并排序增加一点开销对于性能来说可能不是什么问题。
参考:在Coursera上观看普林斯顿算法课程第三周的快速排序视频
维基百科上关于快速排序的词条:
Quicksort also competes with mergesort, another recursive sort algorithm but with the benefit of worst-case Θ(nlogn) running time. Mergesort is a stable sort, unlike quicksort and heapsort, and can be easily adapted to operate on linked lists and very large lists stored on slow-to-access media such as disk storage or network attached storage. Although quicksort can be written to operate on linked lists, it will often suffer from poor pivot choices without random access. The main disadvantage of mergesort is that, when operating on arrays, it requires Θ(n) auxiliary space in the best case, whereas the variant of quicksort with in-place partitioning and tail recursion uses only Θ(logn) space. (Note that when operating on linked lists, mergesort only requires a small, constant amount of auxiliary storage.)
维基百科的解释是:
通常,快速排序在实践中比其他Θ(nlogn)算法要快得多,因为它的内部循环可以在大多数架构上有效地实现,并且在大多数现实数据中,可以做出设计选择,使需要二次时间的概率最小化。
快速排序
Mergesort
我认为归并排序(即Ω(n))所需要的存储量也存在快速排序实现所不具备的问题。在最坏的情况下,它们的算法时间是相同的,但归并排序需要更多的存储空间。
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
我想补充的是,到目前为止提到的三种算法(归并排序,快速排序和堆排序)只有归并排序是稳定的。也就是说,对于那些具有相同键的值,顺序不会改变。在某些情况下,这是可取的。
但是,说实话,在实际情况下,大多数人只需要良好的平均性能和快速排序…快速=)
所有排序算法都有其起伏。有关排序算法的概述,请参阅维基百科的文章。