但大多数人使用快速排序而不是归并排序。为什么呢?”

一个没有给出的心理学原因是，快速排序的名字更为巧妙。很好的市场营销。

是的，带有三重分区的快速排序可能是最好的通用排序算法之一，但“快速”排序听起来比“归并”排序强大得多，这是无法克服的事实。

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.)

但大多数人使用快速排序而不是归并排序。为什么呢?”

一个没有给出的心理学原因是，快速排序的名字更为巧妙。很好的市场营销。

是的，带有三重分区的快速排序可能是最好的通用排序算法之一，但“快速”排序听起来比“归并”排序强大得多，这是无法克服的事实。

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。

快速排序并不比归并排序好。对于O(n²)(很少发生的最坏情况)，快速排序可能比归并排序的O(nlogn)慢得多。快速排序的开销更小，所以对于小n和速度较慢的计算机，它会更好。但是今天的计算机是如此之快，以至于合并排序的额外开销可以忽略不计，并且在大多数情况下，非常慢的快速排序的风险远远超过合并排序的微不足道的开销。

此外，归并排序将具有相同键的项按原始顺序保留，这是一个有用的属性。

That's hard to say.The worst of MergeSort is n(log2n)-n+1,which is accurate if n equals 2^k(I have already proved this).And for any n,it's between (n lg n - n + 1) and (n lg n + n + O(lg n)).But for quickSort,its best is nlog2n(also n equals 2^k).If you divide Mergesort by quickSort,it equals one when n is infinite.So it's as if the worst case of MergeSort is better than the best case of QuickSort,why do we use quicksort?But remember,MergeSort is not in place,it require 2n memeroy space.And MergeSort also need to do many array copies,which we don't include in the analysis of algorithm.In a word,MergeSort is really faseter than quicksort in theroy,but in reality you need to consider memeory space,the cost of array copy,merger is slower than quick sort.I once made an experiment where I was given 1000000 digits in java by Random class,and it took 2610ms by mergesort,1370ms by quicksort.