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。

在c/c++领域，当不使用stl容器时，我倾向于使用快速排序，因为它是构建的 进入运行时，而归并排序没有。

所以我相信，在许多情况下，这只是阻力最小的途径。

此外，对于整个数据集不适合工作集的情况，快速排序的性能可以高得多。

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.)

快速排序是在实践中最快的排序算法，但有一些病态的情况，可以使它的表现差到O(n2)。

堆排序保证在O(n*ln(n))中运行，并且只需要有限的额外存储空间。但是有许多真实世界的测试表明堆排序比快速排序平均要慢得多。

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。

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