this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
85 points (100.0% liked)

Apple

17238 readers
154 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:
  1. No NSFW Content
  2. No Hate Speech or Personal Attacks
  3. No Ads / Spamming
    Self promotion is only allowed in the pinned monthly thread

Lemmy Code of Conduct

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
 

Just in case you wondered how many photos you really can have in your Apple Photos library, I can report that I have so far added 1 000 264 Photos and 10 242 Videos without any issues.

I’m fairly impressed and happy about it since all I could find was that it should support up to 100.000 photos, with a few reasoning about the limit being increased to 300.000 on modern hardware.

1 000 264 Photos, 10 242 Videos in Apple Photos

I’m running this on my MacBook Pro M2 Max with 64 GB ram.

Most formats gets converted to HEIC and HEVC on import, which are staggeringly effective compared to their original formats. The whole library file still only takes up 1.7TB, which is much less than expected. The original source on my NAS is around 5.6 TB.

Edit: Maybe I should add that I do not recommend this, and view it as an experiment for now. I’m still importing data. If it’s still stable and performant after a year and some OS updates then I can start recommending it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.