https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/column-oriented-database-dictionary-encoding-compression-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-27 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Data & Database Technologies

Column-Oriented Database Dictionary Encoding Compression Patents

A 14-family dataset on columnar database dictionary encoding and compression, led by one filer with 5 families and a long tail behind it.

35
Published Records
14
Simple Patent Families
74%
In Force at Cut-off
US
Leading Jurisdiction

35 published records collapse into 14 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 26 of 35 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 14 simple patent families and 35 published records make up this dataset, with no date limit applied to the search.
  • SAP SE holds the largest single share named on 5 of the 14 families (35.7%), ahead of nine other listed filers that hold 2 or fewer families each.
  • G06F carries almost the entire set appearing on 13 of the 14 families (92.9%), with every other classification below it.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··5 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this dataset covers

This dataset gathers records matching column-oriented or columnar storage together with dictionary or encoding and compression in the title, abstract or claims. It resolves to 14 simple patent families and 35 published records, with no start or end date applied to the search string. Legal status at retrieval shows 26 of the 35 records (74%) granted and still in force at the time of the search.

14 families is a small pool. What follows describes what this particular search returned, who filed, which classification the families sit in, and where applications were filed, and should be read as a starting point for a closer search rather than a map of the field.

Records vs. families in scope
  1. SAP SE5
  2. INFOBRIGHT1
  3. REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS INC1
  4. BIGSTREAM SOLUTIONS INC1
  5. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINE CORPORATION1
  6. OCIENT HOLDINGS LLC1
  7. MICRO FOCUS LLC1
  8. NANJING GUODIAN NANZI WEIMEIDE AUTOMATION CO LTD1
  9. RAPID7 INC1
  10. MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING LLC1

Ordered by volume only, not by importance or claim strength. Counted in simple (DOCDB) patent families, so one invention filed in several countries counts once. Names come from Patsnap's standardised assignee field as recorded on each document; subsidiaries and group companies are not merged. The icon before each name is read from the name itself (words such as University, Institute or Ltd); the data carries no organisation-type field, so treat it as a reading aid rather than a classification. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified (7 here); that identification is not exhaustive, so an individually held filing can still appear below. Either way those filings stay inside the totals above. This table shows the top 10 of the 10 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 10 is not the complete set of filers. A single family can name more than one filer, so these counts overlap and do not add up to the total.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from one Patsnap search for Column-Oriented Database Dictionary Encoding Compression Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology

Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.

10,000 free credits to start
Data

Filing trend and classification mix

The figures below are drawn directly from the search result: a filing trend counted in published records, and a technology breakdown counted in simple patent families.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)

Records run from 2007 (3) up to a peak of 10 in 2011. The years from 2022 onward are shaded on the chart because publication lag means they are still filling in; this is not evidence of a slowdown, just incomplete counting.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)035810320072009102011201320152017201920212023202512022 onwards are shaded as still filling in: a filing is only visible once it publishes, up to 30 months after filing.

Counted in published records by earliest filing year, not de-duplicated into families. A filing is counted in the year it was filed, but it only becomes visible after it publishes: roughly 18 months for most routes, and up to 30 months where a PCT application enters national phase. 2022 onwards are therefore still filling in and are shaded; no growth figure on this page uses them. Because this series counts documents rather than inventions, a rise can mean more inventions or the same inventions filed in more countries; this dataset cannot separate the two.

Technology composition (share of 14 simple patent families)

G06F (Electric digital data processing) appears on 13 of the 14 families, 92.9% of the set. Because a family can carry more than one classification, shares across the full chart add up to more than 100%.

Technology composition (share of 14 simple patent families)G06F · Electric digital data processi…1392.9%H03M · Coding & code conversion214.3%G16B · Bioinformatics17.1%

Shares are the percentage of the 14 patent families in scope. One patent family can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from one Patsnap search for Column-Oriented Database Dictionary Encoding Compression Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Column-Oriented Database Dictionary Encoding Compression Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about column-oriented database dictionary encoding compression patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Representative record

One record from the result set

First record returned
US20210042280A12021-02-11

Hardware acceleration pipeline with filtering engine for column-oriented database management systems with arbitrary scheduling functionality

BIGSTREAM SOLUTIONS, INC.

The abstract describes a hardware accelerator for data stored in columnar storage format, comprising memory to store data and a controller that processes at least a subset of a page of columnar format in an execution unit, with arbitrary scheduling across columns of the columnar storage format.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. It should not be read as typical of the other 13 families.

US20210042280A1, patent drawing 1US20210042280A1, patent drawing 2
View record detail

Selected as the first record the search returns under the database default order, then shown in full. It is not ranked by citations, claim breadth or commercial importance, and it is not a judgement about which filing in this space matters most.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. The first record the search returned, shown in full. Derived from one Patsnap search for Column-Oriented Database Dictionary Encoding Compression Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself

Put your own technology through the same analysis


  
Where to run it
Fastest

Eureka on the web

When you want the answer in the next five minutes.

The agent works the prompt against patents and technical literature, citing every source.

Run your analysis now →
For builders

MCP server & REST API

When it has to run inside your own pipeline.

Patent search, landscape analysis and assignee resolution as MCP tools. Drop them into any agent framework, or call REST directly.

Browse MCP servers →
Insights

Reading the numbers

Three figures from this search are worth keeping separate, since each is counted differently and none of them should be summed with another.

Scale
14 / 35
families / published records

Two different counts of the same search

The search returns 35 published records, which de-duplicate down to 14 simple patent families once the same invention filed in multiple countries is collapsed to one. No date range was applied to the search string.

Source: dataset totals
Largest filer
35.7%
of 14 families

SAP SE named on 5 of 14 families

SAP SE is named on 5 of the 14 simple patent families in scope (35.7%), the highest single-row share among the 10 listed filers. Nine of those ten listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each; the rows are not summed here because one family can name more than one filer.

Source: filer list, 10 entities
Classification
92.9%
of 14 families

G06F on 13 of 14 families

G06F (Electric digital data processing) is recorded on 13 of the 14 families in scope. The share exceeds the family count's natural ceiling pattern because a single family can carry more than one classification.

Source: IPC subclass breakdown
Filing location
23 / 35
US-filed records

United States carries the most receiving-office filings

Of the 35 published records, 23 were filed at the United States office, ahead of Europe (EPO), the United Kingdom and WIPO (PCT) at 3 each, China at 2 and Singapore at 1. These figures describe where applications were filed, not where any filer is based.

Source: receiving-office breakdown, 6 offices
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?

Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to column-oriented database dictionary encoding compression patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.

Find the white space →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Derived observations on the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Column-Oriented Database Dictionary Encoding Compression Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next steps

Where to go from this dataset

This page reports what one search string returned. The following steps help turn that into a working view rather than a final one.

Pull the granted claims

A family count or an abstract cannot establish what any patent's claims actually require. Reading the granted claim set directly is the only way to assess scope for any of the 14 families here.

Open Eureka to read full claim sets

Widen or narrow the search string

A 14-family result on a compound term like this one can miss adjacent filings that use different wording for the same mechanism, or pull in noise from unrelated fields. Testing variant phrasing is a reasonable next step before drawing conclusions.

Refine the search in Eureka

Track status changes over time

26 of the 35 records were in force at retrieval; that figure moves as applications grant, lapse or get withdrawn. Monitoring the same query going forward will show how the status mix shifts.

Set up monitoring in Eureka
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for Column-Oriented Database Dictionary Encoding Compression Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Common questions about this dataset

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Column-Oriented Database Dictionary Encoding Compression Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-27. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Column-Oriented Database Dictionary Encoding Compression Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole column-oriented database dictionary encoding compression patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.

Try Eureka
How this page was built, and what the numbers do and do not mean

Search. Every figure on this page comes from one Patsnap search, run once and not edited afterwards. This is the exact search string:

TAC:(("column-oriented" OR "columnar storage") AND (dictionary OR encoding) AND compression)

Reading the field codes: TAC searches the title, abstract and claims of each record, not the full description. The search string sets no date limit, so the scope is every matching record in the database regardless of when it was filed. It is not restricted to recent years. How this string was built matters for how far the counts can be pushed. It was generated in batch from a topic list rather than hand-crafted for this page, and the result set is not manually screened. A keyword search over title, abstract and claims both over-captures (unrelated filings that happen to use the same words) and under-captures (the same invention written in different words). This page cannot measure either effect, so read every figure here as what this particular string returned, not as what exists in the field. One subclass (G06F) carries 92.9% of the patent families, so this search returned a classification-tight set.

What is being counted. Two different units appear on this page and they are not interchangeable. The filer list and the technology split are counted in simple (DOCDB) patent families: one invention counts once however many countries it was filed in. The total, the jurisdiction split and the filing-year chart are counted in published records: the same invention counts once per publication. For this search that is 35 records and 14 families. Record counts reward filing in many jurisdictions; family counts do not. Shares are only ever taken against a denominator in the same unit, and each one names it.

Who the filers are. Names come from Patsnap's standardised assignee field, as recorded on the documents themselves. They are not rolled up to corporate group: a parent and its subsidiaries appear as separate entries, and a portfolio acquired from another company stays under the name on the document unless the assignment is reflected there. This list is meant to carry organisations, not people. Filings held by a named individual are identified by matching the assignee against the inventors on the same search, and, for names written in Chinese, Japanese or Korean characters, by the name carrying no organisational suffix; those are removed from the list (7 of them here). Neither test is exhaustive: the inventor list it matches against is itself capped, and a personal name written in Latin script with no organisational wording in it cannot be told apart from a short company name by rule. So an individually held filing can still appear in the list. Those filings stay inside every total and share on this page either way, so the listed entries can add up to less than the total. A record shown in full further down still names its assignee exactly as the patent office records it, including where that is a person: that name is how the record is identified and checked. What is left out of the ranking is people as ranked entries, not people as cited sources. The table shows the top 10 of the 10 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 10 is not every filer. One patent family can name several filers and each is counted separately, so these rows are not slices of a divided whole: adding them together over-counts, and this page deliberately publishes no combined "top five" share for that reason. See every filer, individuals included

Dates. The year chart counts by earliest filing year, not publication year. A filing only becomes visible once it publishes: roughly 18 months for most routes, and up to 30 months where a PCT application enters national phase. Measured across these pages, the year four back from today still holds only about 89% of its eventual count. 2022 onwards are therefore shaded on the chart as still filling in. The data behind this page was retrieved on 2026-10-27.

Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (26 of 35). Everything else is pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and those states are not broken out here because the underlying codes do not separate them cleanly. Legal status changes continuously and is reported per document, not per family. Get the status breakdown in Eureka

Classification. The technology split uses IPC subclasses (four characters, for example H01M). A single record usually carries several, so the shares add up to more than 100% and a record can appear in more than one bar. Subclass is a coarse grouping; it describes the field a record was classified into, not what the claims cover. Break the classes down to subgroup level

Who wrote the words. The tables, charts, counts, shares and patent numbers on this page are produced directly from the search result by a program; none of them are written or estimated by a language model. The surrounding prose, headings, FAQ answers and the answers in the question panel are drafted by a language model that is given those same figures and is not permitted to introduce others. Prose can still mis-describe a correct figure, so where the two disagree, the tables and charts are the record.

Disclaimer. This page is generated from Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent and scientific-literature records, and is provided for general information and reference only.

Patent data carries limitations that apply to every figure above. Recent filings are under-counted, because an application is not public until roughly 18 months after filing and database loading adds further delay. The search string defines and constrains everything shown: records that use different terminology, or that sit outside the fields searched, are absent and cannot be counted. Applicant names, classification codes, legal-status codes and citation records are taken as recorded and may contain errors, duplicates, omissions or stale entries. Ordering by volume is not a measure of quality, scope, enforceability or commercial value, and a larger portfolio is not a stronger one. As a result, the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.

Nothing on this page constitutes an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate, validity or infringement search, nor does it constitute legal, financial, investment, or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. No attorney-client relationship is created by it. Any patent, commercial, or strategic decision should be verified independently against the primary records and reviewed with qualified patent, legal, and domain professionals. Patsnap makes no warranties, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, or fitness for any particular purpose of the information presented.

The question panel. The answers behind the suggested questions on this page were written when the page was generated, not in response to your click. The progress steps that play before an answer appears are an animation of how that analysis was done; nothing is being searched or computed at that moment. Typing your own question instead opens Patsnap Eureka, which does run it live.

Help us improve

Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.