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 →Analysis of 34 patent families on merge join algorithms for sorted database streams, led by IBM with 8 families.
72 published records collapse into 34 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 25 of 72 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This page tracks records matching database, merge join and a sort-related term across titles, abstracts and claims. The search returns 34 simple patent families and 72 published records, with every subclass tagged against the underlying technology, and every filer counted on a family basis rather than a record basis. Merge join here refers to the relational-database operation that combines two pre-sorted input streams on a join key without a separate hash step.
34 families is a small pool. Treat this page as a starting point for a deeper search rather than a map of the field: a handful of documents can shift a share by several percentage points, and absence of a term in the search string is as likely to explain a gap as absence of filing activity.
Counted over all 72 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 54 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. 2 rows in this table start with the same name (HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE DEV LP, HEWLETT PACKARD CO). They are left as separate rows, so the largest-filer figure above is per legal entity, not per group. Rows that look related still cannot be added together: one family can name several of them. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified (1 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 20 of the 20 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 20 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.
The chart below counts published records by earliest filing year; the table counts IPC subclasses against the 34 families in scope.
Records run from 2007 (4) to a peak of 12 in 2021, then taper into 2026. The stretch from 2022 onward is still filling in as later filings publish, so the last few years understate eventual counts and should not be read as a drop in activity.
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 (54 records); the 72 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
G06F (Electric digital data processing) appears on all 34 families in scope, which is expected given the search string targets a database operation. A handful of other subclasses appear on the chart at low shares; none of them clears a level worth describing in prose.
Shares are the percentage of the 34 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 merge join algorithm for sorted input streams patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaIn a relational database system, a method is used that increases the performance of the sort operation. An optimiser routine in the relational database manager analyses a user's complete query to determine whether the final sorted results can be used directly by the user as sorting occurs. If the sort results can be used, the sort results are sent to Relational Data Services in the relational database manager for output to the user. Depending upon the determination made by the optimiser routine, one of two output modes for the final sorted sequence string of data are selected by the relational database manager.US5089985A, International Business Machines Corporation, filed 1992-02-18. This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not a ranking by citations, breadth or date.


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 worth checking before searching further.
The search returns 34 simple patent families and 72 published records, with no date limit applied. A simple family can produce several published records across receiving offices, which is why the record count runs higher than the family count.
International Business Machine Corporation is named on 8 of the 34 families (23.5%). Two further rows in the listed filers begin with the name Hewlett Packard and are listed separately; they are not summed with each other or with any other row.
Of the 20 listed filers, 17 hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. Because one family can name more than one filer, these rows cannot be added together into a combined share.
25 of the 72 published records were granted and in force at the retrieval date of 2026-10-26. The remaining records are in other states not broken out here, and legal status changes continuously after retrieval.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to database merge join algorithm for sorted input streams patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
This page is a starting point built from one search string. The next steps depend on what you need to check.
A family count or an abstract cannot establish claim scope. Pull the granted claim set for any record that matters before drawing a conclusion about what it covers.
Open the record in EurekaA 34-family pool is small enough that different sort- or join-related terms could move the scope meaningfully. Try adjacent phrasing to see how the count and the filer list change.
Refine the search in EurekaFiler names here are not rolled up to corporate group, so a parent and its named subsidiaries sit on separate rows. Check each row on its own terms before drawing any conclusion about a group.
Explore filers in EurekaThis particular search returns 34 simple patent families and 72 published records, with no date limit applied to the search string. A simple family groups related filings for the same invention across countries, while the record count includes every publication from each of those filings, which is why the record total is higher. Because the search targets a specific phrase combination, it is a sample of what matches that string rather than an exhaustive count of every patent touching merge join operations.
International Business Machine Corporation is named on 8 of the 34 simple patent families in scope, the highest count of any single row in the listed filers. Two further rows in the list begin with the name Hewlett Packard and are listed as separate entries rather than combined. Most of the other listed filers hold small counts: 17 of the 20 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, so a single-row count at 8 stands out against a field of otherwise thin filing counts.
No. One simple patent family can name more than one filer, so the rows in the filer list overlap rather than partition the 34 families. On this dataset the listed rows sum to more than the total family count, which shows the overlap directly rather than any combined coverage figure. Any share you want has to be read off one row at a time, using the family count on that row against the 34-family total.
No. A family count says how many inventions a filer has grouped into families within this search, nothing about what any granted claim requires or how broadly it reads. Determining whether a specific design or implementation falls inside a claim requires reading the granted claim set and prosecution history for that specific record, not inferring from a count or an abstract. This page only provides family and record counts plus an example abstract, neither of which supports a freedom-to-operate conclusion.
The filing trend counts published records by earliest filing year, running from 4 records in 2007 up to a peak of 12 in 2021, then tapering through 2026. That tail is not a decline: records filed from 2022 onward are still publishing, and recent years are understated because publication can lag filing by 18 months or more, longer for PCT applications entering national phase. The series also counts documents, not inventions, so a rise can reflect the same invention being filed in more jurisdictions rather than more distinct inventions.
Go past this page: query the whole database merge join algorithm for sorted input streams 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:((database) AND ("merge join") AND (sort* OR "sorted input"))
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 72 records and 34 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 (1 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 20 of the 20 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 20 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 2026-10-26.
Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (25 of 72). 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