https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/database-columnar-dictionary-encoding-compression-scheme-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-15 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Data & Database Technologies

Database Columnar Dictionary Encoding Compression Patents

A 5-family, 13-record search on columnar dictionary encoding compression, led by SAP SE with a 60% family share.

13
Published Records
5
Simple Patent Families
92%
In Force at Cut-off
US
Leading Jurisdiction

13 published records collapse into 5 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 12 of 13 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • This search returns 5 simple patent families from 13 published records. A small pool rather than a representative map of the field.
  • SAP SE is named on 3 of the 3 families in scope. The highest single-row share returned by this search, at 60.0%.
  • Filings in this set were received at three offices. United States with 10 published records, Europe (EPO) with 2, and Austria with 1.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this search covers

This page reports a targeted search for records that combine columnar database or column store terminology with dictionary encoding and compression or encoding language in the title, abstract or claims. It returns 5 simple patent families drawn from 13 published records, with no date limit applied to the search string itself. The filing-trend chart shown elsewhere on this page covers a recent window only and should not be read as the full span of records in scope.

With only 5 families in scope, this is a small dataset. It is a starting point for scoping a search on dictionary encoding compression schemes, not a map of the field, and conclusions about concentration, trend direction or coverage gaps are not supported by a pool this size.

Records and families in scope
  1. SAP SE3
  2. O9 SOLUTIONS INC1
  3. DATABRICKS INC1

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; 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 3 of the 3 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 3 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 Columnar Dictionary Encoding Compression Scheme 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

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
The Numbers

Filing data at a glance

Figures below are drawn directly from the search result set: 5 simple patent families, 13 published records, and the offices where those records were filed.

Filing trend by earliest filing year

Published records counted by earliest filing year, from 2014 through 2026. The most recent years, from 2022 on, are still filling in as later filings publish, so the chart understates recent activity rather than showing a drop-off. The series tracks published records, not de-duplicated inventions, so one invention filed in multiple offices can appear more than once in the count.

Filing trend by earliest filing year0134542014201520162017201820192020202120225202320242025020262022 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 by IPC subclass

Each family can carry more than one IPC subclass, so the shares shown do not sum to 100%. G06F (Electric digital data processing) appears on all 5 of the simple patent families in scope, 100.0% of the total; the chart may show additional subclasses at lower shares, which this dataset cannot reliably characterise given its size.

Technology composition by IPC subclassG06F · Electric digital data processi…5100.0%

Shares are the percentage of the 5 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 Columnar Dictionary Encoding Compression Scheme 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 Columnar Dictionary Encoding Compression Scheme Patent Landscape with Eureka

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

Try Eureka
Record Spotlight

A record from this result set

From the result set
US20140304219A12014-10-09

Hybrid Database Table Stored as Both Row and Column Store

SAP SE

A hybrid database table is stored as both a row and a column store. One or more techniques may be employed alone or in combination to enhance performance of the hybrid table by regulating access to, and/or the size of, the processing-intensive column store data. For example during an insert operation, the column store data may be searched for a uniqueness violation only after certain filtering and/or boundary conditions have been considered. In another technique, a hybrid table manager may control movement of data to the column store based upon considerations such as frequency of access, or underlying business logic. In still another technique, querying of the hybrid table may result in a seThis is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. It is shown to illustrate what one record in this search looks like, not as representative of the dataset.

US20140304219A1, patent drawing 1US20140304219A1, patent drawing 2
View full record

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 Columnar Dictionary Encoding Compression Scheme 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
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 →
Dataset Signals

What the figures show

Three figures from this search, reported without added interpretation.

Scope
5 families / 13 records
families vs. published records

Two different counts of the same search

The search returns 5 simple patent families, de-duplicated across countries, built from 13 published records, one per publication. These are different units; a share quoted against one does not apply to the other.

Counted at retrieval, 2026-10-15.
Largest filer
60.0%
share of 5 families

SAP SE named on 3 of 3 families

SAP SE is named on 3 of the 3 simple patent families in scope, a 60.0% share of that total. Filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group and a family can name more than one filer, so this figure describes this one row only and cannot be added to any other row.

Filer list is not the complete set of filers for this topic.
Legal status
12 of 13
records granted and in force

92% of records were in force at retrieval

12 of the 13 published records (92%) were granted and in force at the 2026-10-15 retrieval date. This is a snapshot of legal status, not a measure of claim strength or commercial value, and it changes as status updates occur.

Remaining statuses are not broken out in this dataset.
Receiving offices
3 offices
United States, EPO, Austria

Records filed at three receiving offices

The 13 published records in scope were filed at three offices: the United States (10 records), the European Patent Office (2 records), and Austria (1 record). These counts describe where applications were filed, not where any filer is based.

Counts sum to the 13-record total, one filing per office entry.
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 columnar dictionary encoding compression scheme 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 Database Columnar Dictionary Encoding Compression Scheme 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 Steps

Taking this search further

This page is a starting point built from one search string over a small result set. Deeper work on columnar dictionary encoding compression schemes calls for broader query construction and direct reading of granted claims.

Expand the search string

A 5-family result is sensitive to the exact terms used. Variant phrasing around dictionary encoding, run-length encoding or columnar compression may surface records this string did not catch.

Build a broader search in Eureka

Read the granted claims directly

Family counts and abstracts cannot establish what any single patent blocks. Where a specific design or implementation is in question, the claim set itself is the only reliable source.

Pull full claim sets 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 Database Columnar Dictionary Encoding Compression Scheme 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

Common questions on this dataset

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Database Columnar Dictionary Encoding Compression Scheme 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 Columnar Dictionary Encoding Compression Scheme Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole database columnar dictionary encoding compression scheme 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:(("columnar database" OR "column store") AND ("dictionary encoding") AND (compress* OR encod*))

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 100.0% 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 13 records and 5 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. 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 3 of the 3 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 3 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 (12 of 13). 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.