实际上，快速排序是O(n2)。它的平均情况运行时间是O(nlog(n))，但最坏情况是O(n2)，这发生在在包含很少唯一项的列表上运行时。随机化花费O(n)。当然，这并没有改变最坏的情况，它只是防止恶意用户使您的排序花费很长时间。

快速排序更受欢迎，因为它:

(MergeSort需要额外的内存，与要排序的元素数量成线性关系)。 有一个小的隐藏常数。

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。

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。

实际上，快速排序是O(n2)。它的平均情况运行时间是O(nlog(n))，但最坏情况是O(n2)，这发生在在包含很少唯一项的列表上运行时。随机化花费O(n)。当然，这并没有改变最坏的情况，它只是防止恶意用户使您的排序花费很长时间。

快速排序更受欢迎，因为它:

(MergeSort需要额外的内存，与要排序的元素数量成线性关系)。 有一个小的隐藏常数。

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

亩! 快速排序并不比归并排序更好，它非常适合于不同类型的应用。

归并排序是值得考虑的，如果速度是本质，糟糕的最差情况性能不能容忍，并且有额外的空间可用

你说他们«他们都是O(nlogn)[…]»。这是错误的。«快速排序使用大约n^2/2比较在最坏的情况下。

然而，根据我的经验，最重要的属性是在使用带有命令式范式的编程语言进行排序时，可以轻松实现顺序访问。

1 Sedgewick，算法