this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
85 points (100.0% liked)
Apple
17472 readers
47 users here now
Welcome
to the largest Apple community on Lemmy. This is the place where we talk about everything Apple, from iOS to the exciting upcoming Apple Vision Pro. Feel free to join the discussion!
Rules:
- No NSFW Content
- No Hate Speech or Personal Attacks
- No Ads / Spamming
Self promotion is only allowed in the pinned monthly thread
Communities of Interest:
Apple Hardware
Apple TV
Apple Watch
iPad
iPhone
Mac
Vintage Apple
Apple Software
iOS
iPadOS
macOS
tvOS
watchOS
Shortcuts
Xcode
Community banner courtesy of u/Antsomnia.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What is there that could limit the size of the library, apart from storage capacity?
If Apple chose to use a 16-bit integer for the index, they would be limited to approximately 65,000 photos. 32-bit would be about 4 billion. Photos likely uses a 32-bit or even 64-bit integer index value to make it a non-issue.
There could be issues with having too many thumbnails loaded in memory. Maybe some other value overflows when scrolling through (or just loading) an enormous library. If Photos also creates an index for searching that could also create headaches. If Photos were a simple file explorer having a million files shouldn't be an issue but it's more than that, so it's good to know it seems to be performant with even 1 million photos.
Performance, basically. There are a lot of fancy functionality and image processing, memories, search, content recognition, edits, different timeline views, smart albums, people albums etc.. You have to take a lot of care to make all of this work smoothly with 1 million pictures!
Amazingly, so far it seems just about as snappy and smooth as always.