You're asking for which is more powerful - is that really what you care about, or do you just want an interesting character? The number one rule of multiclassing is "never lose spellcasting levels." You've already pretty depowered the character as a Rog3/WW1 even with Magical Knack. I imagine none of the heavy CharOp folks have answered this question yet because your initial build has already provoked them into running about their residences screaming like enraged howler monkeys (rogue, 1 strike; losing spellcasting levels, 2 strikes). If you're looking for superpower, the train has left the station. But if you just want an interesting character to play, read on (though you really should specify what it is you want your character to be able to do/be like...)
In isolation there's a legitimate sorcerer vs witch debate, but if you're a third level rogue who has taken one level in witch, taking anything other than more witch is a severe power compromise - the "third strike." You're getting +2 CL in one class from Magical Knack and then if you were to switch, effectively taking -1 spellcasting level - pretty much losing as much as you're getting. So in this case, "definitely Witch."
As you move on, instead of Sorcerer I'd stick with White-haired Witch (seems like it synergizes well with rogue anyway), or go into Arcane Trickster after a couple levels in Witch - it'll keep full casting progression and is designed to highly synergize with rogue. But never lose a spellcasting level again. Look at it this way, if you were to switch to Sorcerer and be like "woot I want to throw spells", at level 10 you're barely going to be throwing fireballs when normal level 10 spellcasters are really melting faces.
There was a character in my last Pathfinder game who was a Rogue 2/Shadow Oracle 9, that worked out OK (he had a limited times a day super backstab ability and had oracle-boosted stealth stats) so it synergized with rogue well, plus invisibility and major image). So you can multiclass, and even use rogue, but definitely stay away from even more multiclassing. Pathfinder made specific design choices to back away from 3.5's "combination of 6 classes for optimization syndrome" and usually staying single-class is as strong if not stronger than a combo, and the more combo you put in generally the greater a disadvantage you'll have over your comrades.
By strict RAW, you can sense the presence of illusions of all kinds, but you can't actually see exactly where they are, or that they are illusions rather than just some kind of magic in your vicinity. From the description of Detect Magic:
For the duration, you sense the presence of magic within 30 feet of you.
Simple enough; if there's magic, you can sense it.
If you sense magic in this way, you can use your action to see a faint aura around any visible creature or object in the area that bears magic, and you learn its school of magic, if any.
If a creature or object is covered by an illusion, they're not a visible creature or object, and the illusion itself is neither a creature nor an object, so you can't see its aura. An illusion that is not being "borne" by a creature or object is likewise not a visible object or creature, so you can't see its aura, either.
Where things get messy is if there is a creature or object that "bears" an illusion but is still visible. However, I can't find any cases that would fall under this category. For example, you could use Minor Illusion to cover someone's head, but that is a freestanding illusion that happens to be around a creature, rather than actually being borne by that creature.
As far as whether you want Detect Magic to function by strict RAW in your game is concerned, given the way you've phrased this question I assume you're more worried about it being too powerful than the opposite, so this should suit you.
Best Answer
Detect magic would reveal the presence of magic, in most cases, but not the exact illusion being used.
Concentrating long enough with detect magic would indeed reveal that magic of the illusion school had been used, and what area it covered. However, it wouldn't automatically grant knowledge of what had been changed to look like what. So now they know that the appearance of the room has changed, but they don't know what it looked like originally - or what you might have covered up with your illusion. Maybe they'll be twice as wary because they think the illusion is hiding traps or monsters, when its actually just making the place pretty.
Note that illusionists have ways to hide their magic as well - magic aura, mask dweomer, and misdirection come immediately to mind, but there might be ways to hide or change an entire room's aura as well at higher levels.