快速排序并不比归并排序好。对于O(n²)(很少发生的最坏情况)，快速排序可能比归并排序的O(nlogn)慢得多。快速排序的开销更小，所以对于小n和速度较慢的计算机，它会更好。但是今天的计算机是如此之快，以至于合并排序的额外开销可以忽略不计，并且在大多数情况下，非常慢的快速排序的风险远远超过合并排序的微不足道的开销。

此外，归并排序将具有相同键的项按原始顺序保留，这是一个有用的属性。

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。

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.

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

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。

快速排序和合并排序的小增加。

它还可以依赖于排序项的类型。如果访问项、交换和比较不是简单的操作，就像比较平面内存中的整数一样，那么归并排序可能是更可取的算法。

例如，我们在远程服务器上使用网络协议对项目进行排序。

而且，在像“链表”这样的自定义容器中，也没有快速排序的好处。 1. 对链表进行归并排序，不需要额外的内存。 2. 快速排序中对元素的访问不是顺序的(在内存中)