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 15-family dataset on database query execution runtime statistics feedback loops, led by a single filer with a 13.3% share.
22 published records collapse into 15 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 7 of 22 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This page reports records matched by the search string TAC:((database) AND ("query execution") AND ("runtime statistics" OR "feedback loop")), which targets database systems that adjust query execution plans using runtime statistics or a feedback loop. The search carries no date limit, so every matching record regardless of filing date is included; the filing-trend chart below shows only a recent window and should not be read as the full span. In total, 15 simple patent families and 22 published records met the criteria.
This is a small pool. 15 families is not enough to support claims about a market, an industry trend, or which approaches are crowded versus open, absence of documents here is as likely to reflect the search terms as it is to reflect an absence of filings. Treat this page as a starting point for a more targeted search, not as a map of the field.
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 14 of the 14 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 14 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.
Counts below are drawn directly from the search; records and families are different units and are labelled separately throughout.
Published records by earliest filing year, 2009 to 2026. 2025 is the peak year so far at 8 records; 2022 onward is still filling in as later filings continue to publish, so the most recent years understate eventual totals and should not be read as a decline.
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 2009-2026 (21 records); the 22 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
G06F (electric digital data processing) appears on 13 of the 15 families (86.7%), and G06Q (business, commerce & admin data processing) on 3 of the 15 (20.0%). A family can carry more than one class, so these shares add to more than 100%.
Shares are the percentage of the 15 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 query execution runtime statistics feedback loop patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaAn optimizer function of a Relational Database Management System (RDBMS) generates alternative query execution plans (QEPs) for executing a query, provides an execution model of each of the QEPs, chooses one of the QEPs for execution based on the model associated therewith, and exploits an empirical measurement from the execution of the chosen QEP to validate the model associated therewith, by determining whether the model is in error, and by computing one or more adjustments to the model to correct the determined error.US6763359B2, International Business Machines Corporation, filed 2004-07-13. Shown because it is the first record under the database's default ordering, not because it is the most cited, newest or broadest filing in scope.


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 the dataset, reported as counted, with the limits of each noted alongside.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP appears on 2 of the 15 simple patent families in scope (13.3%). This is a count of named families only; it does not indicate claim scope, validity or commercial activity.
All 14 of the 14 organisations listed in the filer table hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. Filer rows are not mutually exclusive, a family can name more than one filer, so these counts cannot be added into a combined share.
At the 2026-10-26 retrieval date, 7 of the 22 published records (32%) were granted and still in force. The remaining records fall into pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not-determinable states that are not separately broken out here.
Of the 4 receiving offices returned by this search, the United States carries 17 of the 22 published records, followed by China and WIPO (PCT) with 2 each and India with 1. This reflects 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 query execution runtime statistics feedback loop 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 pool of records. The following moves refine or extend it.
Runtime statistics and feedback loop are only two of several terms used for adaptive query execution; synonyms like adaptive query plan, cardinality estimation feedback or self-tuning optimizer could surface families this search string missed.
Refine the search in Eureka →Family counts and abstracts cannot establish what a granted claim covers. Anyone evaluating freedom to operate against a specific record here needs the claim set itself, not this summary.
Open claim text in Eureka →The filer table in this dataset excludes individually named inventors, who are still counted in the 15-family and 22-record totals. A full picture of who filed needs those rows too.
View full filer list in Eureka →This search returned 15 simple patent families and 22 published records as of 2026-10-26. A family is one invention, de-duplicated across the countries it was filed in; a published record is one per publication, so the same invention filed in several countries adds several records but one family. The search string carries no date limit, so this covers every matching record regardless of filing date, not a fixed recent window. Readers should treat this as one search string's result, not an exhaustive census of the topic.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP is named on 2 of the 15 simple patent families in scope, the largest single-row figure in the dataset. All 14 of the 14 organisations listed in the filer table hold 2 or fewer families each, so there is no row with a markedly larger count. Filer rows cannot be summed into a combined share because one family can name more than one filer, and the list itself excludes individually named inventors who are still counted in the totals.
The trend counts published records by earliest filing year from 2009 through 2026, with 2025 the peak year so far at 8 records. Records from 2022 onward are still filling in as later filings continue to publish, so recent years understate their eventual totals and should not be read as a slowdown. Because the series counts records rather than de-duplicated inventions, a rise can reflect the same invention being filed more widely rather than more distinct inventions appearing.
No single figure on this page supports that reading. With only 15 families in scope, a count of 2 for the largest filer is arithmetic, not evidence of control: a pool this small cannot support a concentration conclusion, since a handful of filings can produce a high top-row share without implying anything about the broader field. Claim scope, validity and enforceability are separate questions that a family count cannot answer; they require reading the granted claims of each record directly.
This page reports counts and abstracts, neither of which establishes what a granted claim covers; claim scope lives in the claim set and prosecution history of each individual record. The dataset is also small, at 15 families, and built from one search string with no date limit, so it may miss records that use different terminology for the same adaptive-execution concept. Before any design or filing decision, pull the granted claims of the specific records in question and consider re-running the search with adjacent terms to check for gaps.
The search returned 4 receiving offices across the 22 published records: the United States with 17, China and WIPO (PCT) with 2 each, and India with 1. This reflects where each application was filed, not where any filer is based, the dataset holds no nationality or country information for any filer. These counts sum to the record total rather than the family total, since each invention can be filed at more than one office.
Go past this page: query the whole database query execution runtime statistics feedback loop 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 ("query execution") AND ("runtime statistics" OR "feedback loop"))
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 86.7% 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 22 records and 15 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 14 of the 14 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 14 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 (7 of 22). 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.
This page