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。

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.)

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。

同时考虑时间和空间的复杂性。 归并排序: 时间复杂度:O(nlogn)， 空间复杂度:O(nlogn)

快速排序: 时间复杂度:O(n²)， 空间复杂度:O(n)

现在，他们各自在一个场景中获胜。 但是，使用随机枢轴，您几乎总是可以将快速排序的时间复杂度降低到O(nlogn)。

因此，在许多应用中，快速排序是首选，而不是归并排序。

这是采访中经常被问到的一个问题，尽管归并排序在最坏情况下性能更好，但快速排序被认为比归并排序更好，特别是对于大输入。以下是快速排序更好的原因:

1-辅助空间:快速排序是一种就地排序算法。就地排序意味着执行排序不需要额外的存储空间。另一方面，归并排序需要一个临时数组来归并已排序的数组，因此它并不到位。

2-最坏情况:快速排序O(n^2)的最坏情况可以通过使用随机化快速排序来避免。通过选择正确的枢轴，可以很容易地避免这种情况。通过选择合适的枢轴元来获得平均情况下的行为，从而提高了算法的性能，达到了与归并排序一样的效率。

3-引用的局部性:快速排序特别展示了良好的缓存局部性，这使得它在许多情况下比归并排序更快，比如在虚拟内存环境中。

4-尾递归:快速排序是尾递归，而归并排序不是。尾递归函数是一种函数，其中递归调用是函数执行的最后一件事。尾递归函数被认为比非尾递归函数更好，因为尾递归可以被编译器优化。