虽然它们都在相同的复杂度类中，但这并不意味着它们都具有相同的运行时。快速排序通常比归并排序更快，因为它更容易编写紧凑的实现代码，它所做的操作也更快。这是因为快速排序通常更快，人们使用它而不是归并排序。

然而!我个人经常会使用归并排序或快速排序变体，当快速排序表现不佳时，它们会降级为归并排序。记住。快速排序平均只有O(n log n)最坏情况是O(n²)归并排序总是O(n log n).在实时性能或响应性是必须的情况下，你的输入数据可能来自恶意来源，你不应该使用简单的快速排序。

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。

为什么快速排序很好?

QuickSort takes N^2 in worst case and NlogN average case. The worst case occurs when data is sorted. This can be mitigated by random shuffle before sorting is started. QuickSort doesn't takes extra memory that is taken by merge sort. If the dataset is large and there are identical items, complexity of Quicksort reduces by using 3 way partition. More the no of identical items better the sort. If all items are identical, it sorts in linear time. [This is default implementation in most libraries]

快速排序总是比归并排序好吗?

不是真的。

归并排序是稳定的，但快速排序不是。所以如果你需要输出的稳定性，你可以使用归并排序。在许多实际应用中需要稳定性。 现在内存很便宜。因此，如果Mergesort使用的额外内存对您的应用程序不是至关重要的，那么使用Mergesort也没有什么害处。

注意:在java中，Arrays.sort()函数对基本数据类型使用快速排序，对对象数据类型使用归并排序。因为对象消耗内存开销，所以为归并排序增加一点开销对于性能来说可能不是什么问题。

参考:在Coursera上观看普林斯顿算法课程第三周的快速排序视频

正如其他人所注意到的，快速排序的最坏情况是O(n²)，而归并排序和堆排序则停留在O(nlogn)。然而，在平均情况下，这三个都是O(nlogn);所以它们在大多数情况下是可比较的。

平均而言，快速排序更好的地方在于，内循环意味着将多个值与单个值进行比较，而在其他两个循环中，每次比较时两个项都是不同的。换句话说，Quicksort的读取次数是其他两种算法的一半。在现代cpu上，访问时间在很大程度上决定了性能，因此快速排序最终成为一个很好的首选。

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