快速排序具有更好的平均情况复杂度，但在某些应用中它是错误的选择。快速排序容易受到拒绝服务攻击。如果攻击者可以选择要排序的输入，他可以很容易地构造一个时间复杂度为o(n^2)的最坏情况的集合。

归并排序的平均情况复杂性和最坏情况复杂性是相同的，因此不会遇到相同的问题。归并排序的这一特性也使它成为实时系统的最佳选择——确切地说，因为没有导致它运行得非常非常慢的病理情况。

由于这些原因，我更喜欢归并排序，而不是快速排序。

在所有条件相同的情况下，我希望大多数人使用最方便的方法，这往往是qsort(3)。除此之外，快速排序在数组上非常快，就像归并排序是列表的常用选择一样。

我想知道的是为什么基数排序和桶排序这么少见。它们是O(n)至少在链表上是这样的它所需要的只是将键转换为序数的方法。(字符串和浮动工作得很好。)

我认为原因与计算机科学的教学方式有关。我甚至不得不向我的讲师演示算法分析，它确实有可能比O(nlog (n))更快地排序。(他证明了比较排序不能比O(nlog (n))快，这是正确的)

在其他新闻中，浮点数可以按整数排序，但之后必须将负数反转。

编辑: 实际上，这里有一种更糟糕的将浮点数作为整数排序的方法:http://www.stereopsis.com/radix.html。注意，不管你实际使用什么排序算法，比特翻转技巧都可以使用……

与归并排序不同，快速排序不使用辅助空间。而归并排序使用辅助空间O(n)。 归并排序的最坏情况时间复杂度是O(nlogn)而快速排序的最坏情况复杂度是O(n²)这发生在数组已经排序的时候。

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

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。

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.