Bill Wagner在他的书《effective c#》(http://www.amazon.com/Effective-Specific-Ways-Improve-Your/dp/0321245660)中有一章是关于这个的。他总结了以下原则:

类型数据存储的主要职责是什么? 它的公共接口是否完全由访问或修改其数据成员的属性定义? 你确定你的类型永远不会有子类吗? 您确定您的类型永远不会被多态处理吗? 如果你对4个问题都回答“是”，请使用结构体。否则，使用 类。

当我想要将几个值组合在一起以从方法调用中传递内容时，我总是使用结构体，但在读取这些值之后，我将不需要将它用于任何事情。只是为了保持干净。我倾向于将struct中的东西视为“扔掉的”，而将类中的东西视为更有用和“功能性的”

当您需要值类型语义而不是引用类型时，请使用结构。结构体是按值复制的，所以要小心!

另见以前的问题，例如:

.NET中struct和class的区别是什么?

这是一个老话题，但希望提供一个简单的基准测试。

我已经创建了两个。cs文件:

public class TestClass
{
    public long ID { get; set; }
    public string FirstName { get; set; }
    public string LastName { get; set; }
}

and

public struct TestStruct
{
    public long ID { get; set; }
    public string FirstName { get; set; }
    public string LastName { get; set; }
}

运行基准:

创建一个TestClass 创建一个TestStruct 创建100个TestClass 创建100个TestStruct 创建10000个TestClass 创建10000 TestStruct

结果:

BenchmarkDotNet=v0.12.0, OS=Windows 10.0.18362
Intel Core i5-8250U CPU 1.60GHz (Kaby Lake R), 1 CPU, 8 logical and 4 physical cores
.NET Core SDK=3.1.101
[Host]     : .NET Core 3.1.1 (CoreCLR 4.700.19.60701, CoreFX 4.700.19.60801), X64 RyuJIT  [AttachedDebugger]
DefaultJob : .NET Core 3.1.1 (CoreCLR 4.700.19.60701, CoreFX 4.700.19.60801), X64 RyuJIT


|         Method |           Mean |         Error |        StdDev |     Ratio | RatioSD | Rank |    Gen 0 | Gen 1 | Gen 2 | Allocated |
|--------------- |---------------:|--------------:|--------------:|----------:|--------:|-----:|---------:|------:|------:|----------:|

|      UseStruct |      0.0000 ns |     0.0000 ns |     0.0000 ns |     0.000 |    0.00 |    1 |        - |     - |     - |         - |
|       UseClass |      8.1425 ns |     0.1873 ns |     0.1839 ns |     1.000 |    0.00 |    2 |   0.0127 |     - |     - |      40 B |
|   Use100Struct |     36.9359 ns |     0.4026 ns |     0.3569 ns |     4.548 |    0.12 |    3 |        - |     - |     - |         - |
|    Use100Class |    759.3495 ns |    14.8029 ns |    17.0471 ns |    93.144 |    3.24 |    4 |   1.2751 |     - |     - |    4000 B |
| Use10000Struct |  3,002.1976 ns |    25.4853 ns |    22.5920 ns |   369.664 |    8.91 |    5 |        - |     - |     - |         - |
|  Use10000Class | 76,529.2751 ns | 1,570.9425 ns | 2,667.5795 ns | 9,440.182 |  346.76 |    6 | 127.4414 |     - |     - |  400000 B |

我会在以下情况下使用结构体:

an object is supposed to be read only(every time you pass/assign a struct it gets copied). Read only objects are great when it comes to multithreaded processing as they don't requite locking in most cases. an object is small and short-living. In such a case there is a good chance that the object will be allocated on the stack which is much more efficient than putting it on the managed heap. What is more the memory allocated by the object will be freed as soon as it goes outside its scope. In other words it's less work for Garbage Collector and the memory is used more efficient.

If an entity is going to be immutable, the question of whether to use a struct or a class will generally be one of performance rather than semantics. On a 32/64-bit system, class references require 4/8 bytes to store, regardless of the amount of information in the class; copying a class reference will require copying 4/8 bytes. On the other hand, every distinct class instance will have 8/16 bytes of overhead in addition to the information it holds and the memory cost of the references to it. Suppose one wants an array of 500 entities, each holding four 32-bit integers. If the entity is a structure type, the array will require 8,000 bytes regardless of whether all 500 entities are all identical, all different, or somewhere between. If the entity is a class type, the array of 500 references will take 4,000 bytes. If those references all point to different objects, the objects would require an additional 24 bytes each (12,000 bytes for all 500), a total of 16,000 bytes--twice the storage cost of a struct type. On the other hand, of the code created one object instance and then copied a reference to all 500 array slots, the total cost would be 24 bytes for that instance and 4,000 for the array--a total of 4,024 bytes. A major savings. Few situations would work out as well as the last one, but in some cases it may be possible to copy some references to enough array slots to make such sharing worthwhile.

如果实体应该是可变的，那么使用类还是结构的问题在某些方面会更容易。假设“Thing”是一个具有整数字段x的结构体或类，并执行以下代码:

  Thing t1,t2;
  ...
  t2 = t1;
  t2.x = 5;

是否希望后一种说法影响t1.x?

如果Thing是类类型，t1和t2将等效，即t1。X和t2。X也是等价的。因此，第二个语句将影响t1.x。如果Thing是一个结构类型，t1和t2将是不同的实例，即t1。X和t2。X表示不同的整数。因此，第二个语句不会影响t1.x。

Mutable structures and mutable classes have fundamentally different behaviors, though .net has some quirks in its handling of struct mutations. If one wants value-type behavior (meaning that "t2=t1" will copy the data from t1 to t2 while leaving t1 and t2 as distinct instances), and if one can live with the quirks in .net's handling of value types, use a structure. If one wants value-type semantics but .net's quirks would cause lead to broken value-type semantics in one's application, use a class and mumble.