当我试验这两种排序算法时，通过计算递归调用的次数， 快速排序始终比归并排序具有更少的递归调用。 这是因为快速排序有枢轴，而在下一个递归调用中不包括枢轴。这样快速排序可以比归并排序更快地达到递归基本情况。

当我试验这两种排序算法时，通过计算递归调用的次数， 快速排序始终比归并排序具有更少的递归调用。 这是因为快速排序有枢轴，而在下一个递归调用中不包括枢轴。这样快速排序可以比归并排序更快地达到递归基本情况。

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

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。

快速排序是最坏情况O(n²)，然而，平均情况始终执行归并排序。每个算法都是O(nlogn)，但你需要记住，当谈论大O时，我们忽略了较低的复杂度因素。当涉及到常数因子时，快速排序比归并排序有显著的改进。

归并排序也需要O(2n)内存，而快速排序可以就地完成(只需要O(n))。这是快速排序通常比归并排序更受欢迎的另一个原因。

额外信息:

快速排序的最坏情况发生在枢轴选择不佳时。考虑下面的例子:

[5, 4, 3, 2, 1]

If the pivot is chosen as the smallest or largest number in the group then quick sort will run in O(n^2). The probability of choosing the element that is in the largest or smallest 25% of the list is 0.5. That gives the algorithm a 0.5 chance of being a good pivot. If we employ a typical pivot choosing algorithm (say choosing a random element), we have 0.5 chance of choosing a good pivot for every choice of a pivot. For collections of a large size the probability of always choosing a poor pivot is 0.5 * n. Based on this probability quick sort is efficient for the average (and typical) case.

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.)