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 →https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/database-bitmap-index-scan-query-processing-optimization-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-15 · downloaded from the live page
Patent LandscapeDatabase Bitmap Index Scan Query Processing Patents
72 families and 162 records on bitmap index scan query processing, led by one filer with 18 families, among a long tail of single filers.
162
Published Records
72
Simple Patent Families
46%
In Force at Cut-off
US
Leading Jurisdiction
162 published records collapse into 72 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 75 of 162 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
- 72 simple patent families and 162 published records sit in scope, with no date limit set on the search string.
- Oracle Int Corp is named on 18 of the 72 families (25.0%), the largest single-row share in a list of 39 listed filers.
- 35 of the 39 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each the rest of the list is a long tail of small filers.
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview
What this search covers
This page covers 72 simple patent families and 162 published records returned by a search for bitmap index scan and filter query processing, using the exact string shown in the methodology. The search string sets no date limit, so the records span whatever filing years the matching documents happen to carry, and the filing-trend chart below shows only a recent window of that span. At retrieval, 75 of the 162 records (46%) were granted and still in force; the remainder are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and that breakdown is not available on this page.
72 families is a small pool. Treat this page as a starting point for a narrower search rather than a map of the field: absence of documents here is more likely to reflect the search terms than an absence of filing activity.
Scope at a glance
Counted over all 162 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 114 records from 2007 onward, so the two charts are not the same set of documents. 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 (5 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 30 of the 39 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 39 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 Database Bitmap Index Scan Query Processing Optimization Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Data
Filing trend and technology composition
The figures below are drawn directly from the dataset: a filing trend counted in published records, and an IPC breakdown counted in simple patent families.
Filing trend (published records, by earliest filing year) (114 of 162 published records)
Records run from 1 in 2007 up to a peak of 27 in 2016, with 2026 showing 2 so far. Years from 2022 onward are shaded on the chart because they are still filling in: publication lag means recent filings are undercounted, and this series counts documents, not inventions, so a wider count can reflect the same invention published more than once.
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. This chart covers 2007-2026 (114 records); the 162 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
Technology composition (simple patent families)
G06F (Electric digital data processing) appears on 69 of the 72 simple patent families in scope, 95.8% of the total. The chart shows the other subclasses returned by the search; because a single family can carry more than one class, the shares shown add up to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 72 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 Database Bitmap Index Scan Query Processing Optimization Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.
Go deeper on Database Bitmap Index Scan Query Processing Optimization Patent Landscape with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about database bitmap index scan query processing optimization patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaRecord in focus
A record from the result set
First record returned
Method and database computer system for performing a database query using a bitmap index
PARSTREAM GMBH
The abstract describes a method for performing a database query using a bitmap index: on receipt of a query with a selection condition, the method creates a filter bitmap, performs a bitmap scan to find matching database entries, determines a bitmap of those entries, combines it with the filter bitmap, finds all database entries matching the combined bitmap, and subtracts the filtered bitmap from the filter bitmap.This is simply the first record the search returns under the database's default order, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in scope. Nothing about its position in the result set says anything about the rest of the field.
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 Database Bitmap Index Scan Query Processing Optimization Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. 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
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
What the counts show
Three figures from the dataset, reported as counted, with what they do and do not establish.
Largest filer
18 / 72 families
Oracle Int Corp
One row holds a 25.0% share
Oracle Int Corp is named on 18 of the 72 simple patent families in scope, a 25.0% share of that total. This is a single-row figure; filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group and cannot be summed across rows, so this share belongs to this name only.
Counted in simple patent families
Long tail
35 of 39
listed filers
Most listed filers hold 2 or fewer families
35 of the 39 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The listed filers are organisations only; individual-named filers were removed from this list but remain inside the total of 72 families and the 25.0% share above.
Counted in simple patent families, organisations only
Technology composition
69 / 72 families
G06F
G06F appears on 95.8% of families
G06F (Electric digital data processing) is recorded on 69 of the 72 simple patent families in scope, 95.8% of the total. Because a family can carry more than one IPC class, this share is read against the family total, not against a sum of all classes shown on the chart.
Counted in simple patent families
Legal status
75 / 162
in force at retrieval
46% of records were in force at retrieval
75 of the 162 published records (46%) were granted and still in force at the 2026-10-15 retrieval date. Legal status changes continuously and this figure is not a success rate; the remaining records are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and that split is not broken out here.
Counted in published records
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 database bitmap index scan query processing optimization patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Derived observations on the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Database Bitmap Index Scan Query Processing Optimization Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next
Where to take this next
This page is a starting point built from one search string, not a finished map of bitmap index scan query processing filings.
Read the granted claims directly
A family count or an abstract cannot establish what any patent's granted claims require. Pull the claim set for any record that matters to a design decision before drawing a conclusion from it.
Open Patsnap EurekaNarrow or widen the search string
With 72 families in scope, small changes to the search terms can shift which records appear. Treat gaps in the result set as a reason to adjust the string, not as evidence of open space.
Explore further in Patsnap EurekaSource: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for Database Bitmap Index Scan Query Processing Optimization Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
This search returns 72 simple patent families and 162 published records, with no date limit applied to the search string. A simple family groups one invention across the countries it was filed in, while the published-record count includes every publication of that invention, so the two numbers measure different things. Because the search string targets a specific combination of terms, these figures represent what matched that string, not necessarily every filing that touches bitmap index scanning.
Oracle Int Corp is named on 18 of the 72 simple patent families in scope, a 25.0% share, the largest single-row figure among the 39 listed filers. That list shows only organisations; individually named filers were stripped out of the ranked list but remain inside the overall totals. A larger family count does not indicate broader claim scope or stronger enforceability, only a larger number of filed families under that name.
35 of the 39 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each, alongside one filer at 18 families. With only 72 families in scope overall, that is too small a pool to support a conclusion about concentration in the underlying field; it describes this search result, not a market structure. Filer rows also overlap, since one family can name more than one filer, so rows cannot be added together to produce a combined share.
G06F, Electric digital data processing, appears on 69 of the 72 simple patent families in scope, 95.8% of the total. Other IPC subclasses appear in the dataset at lower shares and are shown on the chart, but at this pool size a search string can pull in classes that are only loosely related to the core topic. The IPC breakdown is a useful filter for narrowing further searches rather than a definitive statement of what the field covers.
The chart shows published records by earliest filing year, running from 1 record in 2007 to a peak of 27 in 2016, with years from 2022 onward shaded because they are still filling in. Patent applications typically take 18 months to publish, and up to 30 months when they enter national phase through the PCT route, so the two or three most recent years always understate eventual filing counts. The series counts documents rather than inventions, so a rise or fall in the line can reflect how widely the same invention was filed rather than a change in filing activity.
Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Database Bitmap Index Scan Query Processing Optimization Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Research Database Bitmap Index Scan Query Processing Optimization Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole database bitmap index scan query processing optimization patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
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:(("database" OR "query execution") AND ("bitmap index") AND (scan OR filter* OR process*))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 95.8% 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 162 records and 72 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 (5 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 30 of the 39 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 39 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 2026-10-15.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (75 of 162). 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.
Machine translation. Assignee and organisation names originally recorded in Chinese, Japanese or Korean have been rendered into English by an AI translation step so that the tables stay readable. These renderings are best-effort and may not match a company's registered English name; the original name is what the underlying patent record carries, and it is what any Eureka query launched from this page uses.