# MSE welcomes its $100\,000^{th}$ user…

Math.Stackexchange.com welcomes its $100\,000^{\text{th}}$ user. I don't think you'll get cookies, but even better you'll get your questions answered.

• welcome!! @GolovachLena – what'sup Oct 10 '13 at 22:05
• Seems to me like a good addition to the milestones page. – Dan Rust Oct 10 '13 at 22:23
• Well, if there is a user with number 100000, this does not exactly mean that MSE has 100000 users. Merged accounts, deleted users, probably other things,.... (But it definitely is a close approximation.) – Martin Sleziak Oct 11 '13 at 6:09
• @Martin: Also the user number includes unregistered accounts. – Asaf Karagila Oct 15 '13 at 22:30
• Over 100000 as of January 22, 2014; added to the history thread. – user127096 Feb 25 '14 at 3:16

Looking at the UserId is a serious overestimate. The query

SELECT COUNT(Id) AS NumberOfUsers FROM Users


returns 82335, based on the data from October 13. (This includes both registered and unregistered accounts.)

Since September 1, new users are joining at the rate of about 180/day, see new users per day. If this continues, the user base will reach 100000 in about 3 months.

The most up-to-date available count of users (also including unregistered) is in the list of SE sites (link pointed out by Martin Sleziak). Mouse over the number of users to get a more precise figure.

The older version of this post used

SELECT COUNT(*) AS NumberOfUsers FROM Users


which undercounts table rows by a thousand or so, for reasons that transcend my limited knowledge of SQL.

• And as I type this it’s down to $81117$. – Brian M. Scott Oct 13 '13 at 22:34
• BTW number of the users is shown in the list of sites in SE network, too. (I am not sure how often it is updated.) This number says 82848 at the moment. – Martin Sleziak Oct 15 '13 at 18:17
• @MartinSleziak The site list at stackexchange.com is updated at least daily, so it may be the best approximation to the current number of users. It's at 82904 now. – user98130 Oct 16 '13 at 0:06
• @BrianM.Scott Thanks for pointing out the drop; this was certainly an SQL artifact rather than an actual drop in the number of users. I modified the query to obtain a hopefully correct count. – user98130 Oct 16 '13 at 0:37
• 98766 users as of my writing this. – 6005 Jan 13 '14 at 12:48

... and closes her* post as off-topic.

This question is missing context or other details

• assuming the name is real, which I doubt.

Golovach Lena => Головач Лена => "голова члена" => "head of the penis". An old old joke.

• seems like reason to celebrate..... – Eleven-Eleven Oct 11 '13 at 1:40
• Classic. ${}{}$ – The Chaz 2.0 Oct 11 '13 at 2:29
• Very ironic.... – Prism Oct 11 '13 at 2:36
• And every comment ends with " Golovach Lena is Love!!!"... – user61527 Oct 11 '13 at 3:59
• @T.Bongers Hmm, is seems that the comments have been edited to remove the phrase. – Joel Reyes Noche Oct 16 '13 at 6:17

As others have pointed out, these kind of ID numbers (usually surrogate database keys) should not be used to count table rows, even disregarding deleted/merged accounts. Databases often produce "holes" in the sequence, (and that's considered ok) because of the need to deal with concurrency and transactions.

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3404244/values-missing-in-postgres-serial-field/3405490#3405490

http://beyondrelational.com/modules/2/blogs/77/posts/19500/0267-sql-server-identity-columns-myths-identity-columns-cannot-have-holes-or-gaps.aspx