3 ms·

I have 130,000 photos in iCloud Photos and the photos app on my Mac and iPhone can scrub back and forth in the history from today back to 1985 completely flawle

I have 130,000 photos in iCloud Photos and the photos app on my Mac and iPhone can scrub back and forth in the history from today back to 1985 completely flawlessly in literally a second with no hitch. It sounds like OneDrive is a file syncing solution where they hacked on some photo browsing functionality to preview a handful of pictures in a directory and it's not thought through for people who actually want to use it for more than that.

PaulHoule 5y ago
Any particular set of algorithms and data structures is going to scale in a certain way. Some people might really be happy with having 500 images in a directory. With 130,000 local thumbnails and the right data structures you'd think you could browse quickly, but it is a lot of thumbnails (might not want to store that much.) It would make a big difference if you had SSD or a hard drive or could afford to store a lot in RAM. If it is based on cloud storage you have an entirely different problem but also different solutions available (e.g. when you log into the application a huge amount of data gets spooled into RAM sequentially so temporarily you are using vastly more resources than would normally be available; this is a lot of why gmail and google analytics are so responsive.) There also are tricks that would make scrolling from the beginning to the end seem really fast but not be so good at scrolling into the middle. In my case I am dealing with 50MB RAW files from my camera which are admittedly excessive (most of the pixels are surplus, I shoot pictures that look great on a screen or on a 8.5x11 print but if I zoom in they rarely look 'tack sharp') The scaling of that is a different story than 0.5MB JPEG files. I remember iPhoto being absolutely awful circa 2010 with 10,000 local files on a magnetic hard drive. You're telling me it is much better w/ cloud storage in 2022.

PaulHoule 5y ago

Any particular set of algorithms and data structures is going to scale in a certain way. Some people might really be happy with having 500 images in a directory. With 130,000 local thumbnails and the right data structures you'd think you could browse quickly, but it is a lot of thumbnails (might not want to store that much.) It would make a big difference if you had SSD or a hard drive or could afford to store a lot in RAM. If it is based on cloud storage you have an entirely different problem but also different solutions available (e.g. when you log into the application a huge amount of data gets spooled into RAM sequentially so temporarily you are using vastly more resources than would normally be available; this is a lot of why gmail and google analytics are so responsive.) There also are tricks that would make scrolling from the beginning to the end seem really fast but not be so good at scrolling into the middle. In my case I am dealing with 50MB RAW files from my camera which are admittedly excessive (most of the pixels are surplus, I shoot pictures that look great on a screen or on a 8.5x11 print but if I zoom in they rarely look 'tack sharp') The scaling of that is a different story than 0.5MB JPEG files. I remember iPhoto being absolutely awful circa 2010 with 10,000 local files on a magnetic hard drive. You're telling me it is much better w/ cloud storage in 2022.