https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/database-parallel-hash-join-execution-strategy-selection-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-15 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Database Technologies

Database Parallel Hash Join Execution Strategy Patents

Dataset of 44 patent families on parallel hash join execution strategy selection, covering filers, filing history and classification spread.

96
Published Records
44
Simple Patent Families
66%
In Force at Cut-off
US
Leading Jurisdiction

96 published records collapse into 44 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 63 of 96 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • No single filer leads this pool. Oracle Int Corp, International Business Machine Corporation and Teradata US Inc are tied at 5 simple patent families each, the highest count in the listed filers.
  • Filing activity is spread thin across names. 22 of the 25 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each.
  • Almost every family sits in one classification. G06F (Electric digital data processing) covers all 44 simple patent families in scope, 100% of the pool.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··6 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this dataset covers

This dataset gathers patent records matching a search string built around database or query execution, combined with hash join and a parallelism term — parallel, multi thread, or partition. It returns 96 published records, which de-duplicate to 44 simple patent families once filings for the same invention across different countries are merged. The search string carries no date limit, so this is every matching record the query returns regardless of filing date, not a window chosen for this page.

With 44 families in scope, this is a small pool. The figures below describe exactly what the search returned, they are a starting point for a closer search, not a map of the field, and small counts in any slice should be read as a limit of the search terms rather than evidence of gaps in filing activity.

Records vs. families in scope
  1. ORACLE INT CORP5
  2. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINE CORPORATION5
  3. TERADATA US INC5
  4. SHANDONG CHAOYUE DATA CONTROL ELECTRONICS CO LTD2
  5. SALESFORCE INC2
  6. SYBASE INC2
  7. HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE DEV LP2
  8. SNOWFLAKE INC2
  9. MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING LLC2
  10. HUAWEI TECH CO LTD2

Counted over all 96 published records, including filings from before 2007; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 79 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; 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 25 of the 25 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 25 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 Parallel Hash Join Execution Strategy Selection 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
Data

Filing history and classification spread

Two views of the same 44 families: when the underlying records were filed, and which IPC subclasses they sit in.

Filing trend by publication year (79 of 96 published records)

Counted in published records by earliest filing year. The series runs from 2007 to 2026, reaching a peak of 13 records in both 2015 and 2017. Records from 2022 onward are still arriving as later filings publish, so that stretch understates eventual totals and should not be read as a decline.

Filing trend by publication year (79 of 96 published records)048111512007200920112013132015132017201920212023202512022 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. This chart covers 2007-2026 (79 records); the 96 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.

IPC subclass composition

Shares are against the full 44 simple patent families and can sum to more than 100% because one family can carry more than one classification. G06F (Electric digital data processing) is attached to all 44 families in scope, 100% of the pool; the remaining subclasses the chart shows sit well below that level.

IPC subclass compositionG06F · Electric digital data processi…44100.0%G06N · Computing based on AI models12.3%H04L · Digital information transmissi…12.3%

Shares are the percentage of the 44 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 Parallel Hash Join Execution Strategy Selection 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 Parallel Hash Join Execution Strategy Selection Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about database parallel hash join execution strategy selection patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Record in focus

A record from the result set

First record returned
US9275110B22016-03-01

Disk-based hash join process

PARACCEL LLC

A database system performs a hash join process for queries that join an inner and an outer database table. The process builds a hash table in memory for the inner table, with a limit set on the memory available to store it. The system maximizes the number of partitions kept in memory, and if the hash table exceeds the memory limit while rows are added from the inner table, it selects a partition, the largest, or one larger than most others, to spill to persistent storage.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. US9275110B2, assigned to Paraccel LLC, published 2016-03-01.

US9275110B2, patent drawing 1US9275110B2, 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 Parallel Hash Join Execution Strategy Selection 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 →
Insights

What the figures show

Three readings drawn directly from the filer, classification and legal-status figures in scope.

Filer tie at the top
5 families each
highest count among listed filers

Three filers share the top count

Oracle Int Corp, International Business Machine Corporation and Teradata US Inc are each named on 5 of the 44 simple patent families. No single filer in the listed set holds more than that, so there is no highest-count row to point to alone.

Counted in simple patent families.
Long tail
22 of 25
listed filers at 2 or fewer families

Most listed filers hold a small number of families

Of the 25 organisations in the listed filer set, 22 are named on 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The list contains organisations only; individual-inventor filings are removed from it but remain inside the 44-family total.

Listed filers are the top 25 the data endpoint returns, not a complete set.
Classification concentration
100%
of 44 families carry G06F

G06F covers the full set in scope

All 44 simple patent families carry the IPC subclass G06F (Electric digital data processing). Because a family can carry more than one classification, this share does not exclude families also carrying other subclasses shown on the chart.

Share is against the 44-family total; multi-class families can push totals past 100%.
Legal status
63 of 96
records granted and in force

Two-thirds of records are in force at retrieval

63 of the 96 published records (66%) were granted and still in force as of the 2026-10-15 retrieval date. This is a snapshot of legal status at one point in time, not a success rate, and it will keep changing as records lapse, grant or get withdrawn.

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 parallel hash join execution strategy selection 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 Parallel Hash Join Execution Strategy Selection 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

Where to take this next

This page reports what one search string returned. Narrowing or widening that string, or pulling granted claims directly, is the next step for any decision that depends on scope.

Read the granted claims

A family count or an abstract cannot establish what a patent covers. If a design or a filing decision depends on claim scope, pull the granted claim set for the specific record in question.

Explore in Patsnap Eureka

Run a wider or narrower search

This dataset reflects one search string with no date limit. Adjusting the terms, adding synonyms, dropping a constraint, will change both the record count and which filers appear.

Build a new search in Patsnap 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 Parallel Hash Join Execution Strategy Selection 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

Questions practitioners ask about this dataset

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Database Parallel Hash Join Execution Strategy Selection 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 Parallel Hash Join Execution Strategy Selection Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole database parallel hash join execution strategy selection 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:(("database" OR "query execution") AND ("hash join") AND (parallel* OR "multi thread" OR partition*))

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 96 records and 44 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 25 of the 25 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 25 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 (63 of 96). 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.

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.