Multithreaded quicksort in C#

One day I decided to challenge myself by trying to implement multithreaded quicksort. I wanted to see how it would compare to the built-in Array.Sort() method.

I came up with two algorithms that were 2-4x faster than Array.Sort():

  1. Top-down: divide-fork-sort-merge
  2. Bottom-up: quicksort with fork-on-recursion

After continuing to tinker, in attempts to further optimize, I came across the AsParallel().OrderBy() method (PLINQ). After reading about this, I realized it was the same approach as my divide-fork-sort-merge algorithm. I did a performance test and it was also 2-4x faster than Array.Sort().

In the end, I’d use the built-in AsParallel().OrderBy() method in production software if the input were relatively large. Otherwise I’d stick to the regular built-in methods for sorting a list/array. In general it’s a good idea to use built-in functionality instead of rolling your own, because it keeps your code clean and simple.

Primer on quicksort and why I wanted to make it threaded

What is quicksort?

It’s a divide-and-conquer sorting algorithm that works like this:

Pick a pivot

Partition the array around the pivot
   left subarray = any element <= pivot
   right subarray = any element > pivot

Quicksort(left subarray)
Quicksort(right subarray)Code language: plaintext (plaintext)

Here’s what this looks like:

Illustrating the quicksort algorithm: an array being partitioned and sorted recursively

Why divide-and-conquer algorithms, like quicksort, benefit from multithreading

Multiple threads help speed things up if:

  1. The processor has multiple cores, and therefore can run multiple threads concurrently.
  2. The work can be divided into non-overlapping partitions

Because quicksort divides the array into two non-overlapping subarrays at each step, it meets the second condition, and the work can be parallelized.

Comparing performance

To compare performance I generated an array with random elements, then copied this array into other arrays for each algorithm I was testing. This was to make sure the algorithms were sorting the exact same sequence of elements. Then I used System.Diagnostics.Stopwatch to measure the elapsed time of each algorithm.

var approach1Array = SortUtility.GenRandomArray<string>(size: 10_000_000);
Console.WriteLine("Size " + approach1Array.Length);
var approach2Array = new string[approach1Array.Length];
Array.Copy(approach1Array, approach2Array, approach2Array.Length);

Stopwatch approach1Stopwatch = new Stopwatch();
Console.WriteLine($"Array.Sort - Is sorted? {SortUtility.IsSorted(approach1Array)}. ElapsedMS={approach1Stopwatch.ElapsedMilliseconds}");

Stopwatch approach2Stopwatch = new Stopwatch();
approach2Array = approach2Array.AsParallel().OrderBy(t => t).ToArray();
Console.WriteLine($"PLINQ.Sort - Is sorted? {SortUtility.IsSorted(approach2Array)}. ElapsedMS={approach2Stopwatch.ElapsedMilliseconds}");

Code language: C# (cs)

Here are the utility functions I used for generating input and verifying sorted order.

public static T[] GenRandomArray<T>(int size = 10000)
	var a = new T[size];
	Random r = new Random();

	for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
		a[i] = (T)Convert.ChangeType(r.Next(Int32.MinValue, Int32.MaxValue), typeof(T));

	return a;

public static bool IsSorted<T>(T[] a) where T : IComparable<T>
	if (!a.Any())
		return true;

	var prev = a.First();

	for (int i = 1; i < a.Length; i++)
		if (a[i].CompareTo(prev) < 0)
			return false;

		prev = a[i];

	return true;
Code language: C# (cs)

Bottom-up: quicksort with fork-on-recursion

I made a modification to the quicksort algorithm. After partitioning, it’s quicksorting the left and the right subarrays in their own threads concurrently.

Pick a pivot

Partition the array around the pivot
   left subarray = any element <= pivot
   right subarray = any element > pivot

Fork Quicksort(left subarray)
Fork Quicksort(right subarray)Code language: plaintext (plaintext)


To illustrate this, every time the call tree branches, it is also forking the work.

Illustrating the quicksort fork-on-recursion algorithm: Each partition forks into two threads


public class ThreadedQuickSort<T> where T : IComparable<T>
	public async Task QuickSort(T[] arr)
		await QuickSort(arr, 0, arr.Length - 1);
	private async Task QuickSort(T[] arr, int left, int right)

		if (right <= left) return;
		int lt = left;
		int gt = right;
		var pivot = arr[left];
		int i = left + 1;
		while (i <= gt)
			int cmp = arr[i].CompareTo(pivot);
			if (cmp < 0)
				Swap(arr, lt++, i++);
			else if (cmp > 0)
				Swap(arr, i, gt--);
		var t1 = Task.Run(() => QuickSort(arr, left, lt - 1));
		var t2 = Task.Run(() => QuickSort(arr, gt + 1, right));

		await Task.WhenAll(t1, t2).ConfigureAwait(false);

	private void Swap(T[] a, int i, int j)
		var swap = a[i];
		a[i] = a[j];
		a[j] = swap;
Code language: C# (cs)


Size 10000000
Array.Sort - Is sorted? True. ElapsedMS=45740
Bottomup-Quicksort-ForkOnRecursion (mine) - Is sorted? True. Elapsed=19801
PLINQ.Sort - Is sorted? True. ElapsedMS=15551Code language: plaintext (plaintext)

What doesn’t work

The key problem is the top-level thread needs to know when all child threads have completed. The simplest way I found to do this was by using await/async and Tasks.

I attempted to spawn new threads, and then calling Thread.Join(). With a large enough input, this quickly resulted in OutOfMemoryExceptions.

I tried to use ThreadPool threads. As mentioned above, the top-level thread needs to know about the child threads and when they have completed. This can’t be done with recursion, because there’s a race condition. It can be done using iterative quicksort – using CountdownEvent to signal the top-level waiter – but with this approach you have to partition all the way down to a predetermined limit (let’s say 1024 elements), and then sort those in a new thread. This defeats the purpose of multithreading. The gains in performance come from dividing the work into multiple threads right away.

Top-down: divide-fork-sort-merge

I randomly thought of this algorithm, wrote it down, then implemented it. Later on I found out that this is approach is the Fork-Join pattern.

Divide array into 4 subarrays

For each subarray
    Fork Sort(subarray)

4-way merge subarraysCode language: plaintext (plaintext)


Illustrating the quicksort fork-join algorithm: Array is partitioned into N parts, each part is sorted in a separate thread then merged


public class ForkJoinSort<T> where T : IComparable<T>
	public async Task Sort(T[] a)
		var arrs = Divide(a);

		List<Task> tasks = new List<Task>();
		foreach (var arr in arrs)
			var tmp = arr;
			tasks.Add(Task.Run(() => { Array.Sort(tmp); }));

		await Task.WhenAll(tasks.ToArray()).ConfigureAwait(false);
		Merge(a, new List<Arr>
			new Arr() { a = arrs[0], ptr = 0 },
			new Arr() { a = arrs[1], ptr = 0 },
			new Arr() { a = arrs[2], ptr = 0 },
			new Arr() { a = arrs[3], ptr = 0 },


	private class Arr
		public T[] a;
		public int ptr;

	private static void Merge(T[] destArr, List<Arr> arrs)
		T minValue;
		Arr min;

		for (int i = 0; i < destArr.Length; i++)
			var firstArr = arrs.First();
			minValue = firstArr.a[firstArr.ptr];
			min = firstArr;

			for (int j = 1; j < arrs.Count; j++)
				if (arrs[j].a[arrs[j].ptr].CompareTo(minValue) < 0)
					minValue = arrs[j].a[arrs[j].ptr];
					min = arrs[j];

			destArr[i] = minValue;

			if (min.ptr >= min.a.Length)

	private List<T[]> Divide(T[] a)
		List<T[]> arrs = new List<T[]>();

		int divisionSize = a.Length / 4;

		var a1 = new T[divisionSize];
		var a2 = new T[divisionSize];
		var a3 = new T[divisionSize];
		var a4 = new T[a.Length - (divisionSize * 3)];

		Array.Copy(a, 0, a1, 0, a1.Length);
		Array.Copy(a, divisionSize, a2, 0, a2.Length);
		Array.Copy(a, divisionSize * 2, a3, 0, a3.Length);
		Array.Copy(a, divisionSize * 3, a4, 0, a4.Length);

		return new List<T[]>()
				a1, a3, a2, a4


Code language: C# (cs)


Size 10000000
Array.Sort - Is sorted? True. ElapsedMS=44544
PLINQ.Sort - Is sorted? True. ElapsedMS=15213
Topdown-ForkJoinSort - Is sorted? True. Elapsed=18240Code language: plaintext (plaintext)

What doesn’t work

Divide takes a trivial amount of time, Sort takes 80%, and Merge takes 20% of the time.

It may seem odd that the array is divided into 4 equal parts. The main temptation is to try to partition the array, such that a1 < a2 < a3 < a4, which then makes the merging step trivial. The primary problem is picking a good pivot is hard. The same is true for quicksort itself. Why? Because, in order to pick the best pivot, you really need the middle-most element, which would require n^2 comparisons (in other words, you have to sort first in order to pick a good partition).

By random chance, you’ll sometimes end up with the left partition having 95% of the elements, thereby making the multithreading pointless. By random chance, you’ll also end up with the perfect partition sometimes. Therefore, it makes more sense to just evenly partition the arrays.

The other main optimization temptation is to detect “streaks” while merging, and then bulk-copying to the target array. However, this suffers from the same problem as what was mentioned above. In the worst case, the mins will never be pulled from the same array twice in a row. In most cases, the streaks will be small, and not worth the overhead of trying to keep track of “streaks.”

It’s interesting that simplicity is the best approach here due to randomness making “smarter” approaches ineffective.


The AsParallel().OrderBy() built-in method (PLINQ) uses the Fork-Join algorithm. Here’s how to use it sort an array:

arr = arr.AsParallel().OrderBy(t => t).ToArray();
Code language: C# (cs)

That’s it. Simple.

There are two reasons why I would always choose this over my homemade algorithms:

  1. It abstract away complexity, making my code very simple
  2. It usually outperforms my algorithms by a little bit.

6 thoughts on “Multithreaded quicksort in C#”

  1. Nice post! Thanks for sharing your findings!

    I was also thinking about parallelizing QuickSort using C#. And I tried a few basic ways (I mean, using WaitAll or WhenAll) but none of them beats Array.Sort() which is pretty fast. Actually, I don’t even see any practical improvement w.r.t. the non-async QuickSort implementation.

    For instance, this is my output in case of an int[] array of 10.000.000 entries (random values between int.MinValue and int.MaxValue):

    Execution Time with Array.Sort(): 734 ms
    Execution Time with PLINQ(): 1862 ms
    Execution Time with QuickSort(): 2785 ms
    Execution Time with QuickSortAsync(): 2358 ms

    For smaller arrays of 100.000 elements:

    Execution Time with Array.Sort(): 5 ms
    Execution Time with PLINQ(): 126 ms
    Execution Time with QuickSort(): 20 ms
    Execution Time with QuickSortAsync(): 20 ms

    NOTE: my implementation of QuickSort uses the last element as the pivot (which is not the best option for performance)

    • Well, actually those numbers were in Debug mode.

      In release mode things change (10.000.000 array size):

      Execution Time with Array.Sort(): 731 ms
      Execution Time with PLINQ(): 1573 ms
      Execution Time with QuickSort(): 853 ms
      Execution Time with QuickSortAsync(): 552 ms

      For 100.000 array size:

      Execution Time with Array.Sort(): 5 ms
      Execution Time with PLINQ(): 133 ms
      Execution Time with QuickSort(): 6 ms
      Execution Time with QuickSortAsync(): 8 ms

      The memory allocation is pretty much the same. Only PLINQ is worse.
      In CPU utilization only PLINQ raises a transient peak of 100%.

      So, my conclusion is that PLINQ is the worst approach in this scenario. And, surprisingly, the Release version of a simple QuickSort algorithm provides similar performance to Array.Sort() built-in function.

      • Interesting results, thanks for sharing.

        I noticed you are using ints instead of strings, so I did another performance test using 10 million ints.
        Array.Sort(): 1250 ms
        PLINQ: 1894 ms
        Topdown-ForkJoinSort: 917 ms

        Just like your results – threaded quicksort is the fastest. Array.Sort() seems to do better with ints than strings. If you re-run your tests using strings, you’ll probably observe the same thing. I would guess Array.Sort() has some great optimizations when dealing with integers (at least compared to strings).

        You also made a good observation about PLINQ using more resources than the other options. I didn’t think about looking at memory usage. That would definitely be a factor if you’re deciding whether to use PLINQ or your own threaded QS.

        • Dear Mak,

          I’ve just returned to this question and I am curious about your implementation. My implementation of QuickSortAsync is faster than Array.Sort() because I am using the sync (and not the async) version of the function inside Task.Run() for recursion. This is the code:

          private static async Task QuickSortLomutoAsync(int[] X, int a, int z)
          if (z > a)
          // Rearrange array with pivot
          int pivot = PartitionLomuto(X, a, z);

          // QuickSort on left and right of pivot
          var t1 = Task.Run(() => QuickSortLomuto(X, a, pivot – 1)); //Note this is calling the sync function
          var t2 = Task.Run(() => QuickSortLomuto(X, pivot + 1, z)); //Note this is calling the sync function

          await Task.WhenAll(t1, t2).ConfigureAwait(false);


          Thus, basically the original array is mainly processed by two threads only: one operates the left part and the other the right part. As expected, processing the array in two parts in parallel should improve a single-thread version. But note that the creation of the Tasks only happens once, not at every recursive call.

          However, if I use the Async itself in the recursion, hundreds of Tasks appear (as expected) and I’ve seen more than 12 concurrent threads. In this case, the performance is very very slow for large arrays.

          I’ve just tried your own code and it happens the same. It is very slow. So I am curious why your recursive async quicksort performs well. I am missing something? Keep it up!

          • Hi Oddik,

            In the article I did two approaches:
            1. Bottom-up fork-on-recursion. This is the slow one that spawns too many threads. I think you’re referring to this one?

            2. Top-down divide-fork-then-merge. This is the fast one that partitions the array into 4 subarrays, then quicksorts each subarray in its own thread, then merges the four subarrays (for the final sorted version).

            You could try out the divide-fork-then-merge one. It’s fast, and looks like it’s similar to the code you pasted. Here is a direct link to that code:

  2. Hi Mak,

    thank you a lot for your reply! Sorry I haven’t read that section before just because I thought you were making a fork version of MergeSort and I was interested in QuickSort. Ok, now I understand is that algorithm the one that runs fast. I’ve just tested it and it performs very well. If you iterate the experiment the performance improves. This is a general issue with multithreaded code. If you call the code just once, there is a significant overhead of overhead the first time (creating threads). Ex of 10 consecutive runs of your divide-fork-then-merge:

    Execution time: 1053 ms // This is due to the overhead of creating all stuff for multi-threading
    Execution time: 626 ms
    Execution time: 631 ms
    Execution time: 592 ms
    Execution time: 607 ms
    Execution time: 610 ms
    Execution time: 613 ms
    Execution time: 612 ms
    Execution time: 602 ms
    Execution time: 601 ms
    Av. execution time: 654.7 ms

    I have seen this behavior when I worked with Matlab too. There is a considerable overhead the first time. So, in conclusion, I would only see practical advantages of multithreaded-sorting if you need to do some repetitive and extreme calculations like in scientific tests where you might have many large arrays.

    Thank you for sharing your knowledge and code. I am learning C# and your code is quite interesting (uses generic types).


Leave a Comment