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 →A 5-family, 13-record search on columnar dictionary encoding compression, led by SAP SE with a 60% family share.
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 In force = 12 of 13 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.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 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.
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.
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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%.
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 EurekaA 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.


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.
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 →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 →Three figures from this search, reported without added interpretation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 EurekaFamily 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 EurekaThis specific search string returns 5 simple patent families, built from 13 published records, with no date limit applied. That count reflects one search over a narrow phrase combination and should not be read as an exhaustive count of all patents touching columnar dictionary encoding, since different wording or classification choices would return a different set. Treat this figure as a starting point for scoping, not a final census of the technology.
SAP SE is named on 3 of the 3 simple patent families returned by this search, a 60.0% share of that total. The filer list returned by this search contains only 3 organisations and individual inventors were removed from that list, so this is not a complete picture of every filer touching the topic. A larger family count also does not indicate broader or stronger claims, only a higher number of filed inventions in this result set.
US20140304219A1, filed by SAP SE and published in 2014, describes a hybrid database table stored as both a row store and a column store, with techniques to regulate access to and the size of the column-store data during operations like inserts and querying. The abstract describes a hybrid table manager that can move data between stores based on access frequency or business logic. An abstract summarises the invention but does not state what the granted claims actually require; that has to be read from the claim set itself, and this page does not offer a view on infringement or freedom to operate.
The filing trend shown on this page counts published records by earliest filing year, running from 2014 through 2026, with a peak so far of 5 records in 2023. Years from 2022 onward are still filling in as later-filed applications publish, typically 18 to 30 months after filing, so the most recent years understate eventual totals rather than showing a real slowdown. With only a handful of records in any given year, year-to-year moves in this series are not a reliable basis for a trend or growth-rate conclusion.
At the 2026-10-15 retrieval date, 12 of the 13 published records in scope (92%) were granted and in force. This is a legal-status snapshot rather than a measure of patent quality or commercial value, and status changes continuously as patents lapse, get challenged, or expire on schedule. The remaining record's status is not broken out in this dataset, so it should not be assumed to be pending, withdrawn or any other specific state.
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.
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.
This page