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 →19 simple patent families on database join order enumeration, with the largest filer named on 4 of them.
44 published records collapse into 19 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 16 of 44 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
This dataset gathers records whose title, abstract or claims mention a database or query optimizer together with join order and either enumeration, dynamic programming, or search. It returns 19 simple patent families consolidated from 44 published records, with no date limit applied to the query itself.
This is a small pool: 19 families is not enough to support a map of a field, a trend reading, or a concentration conclusion. Treat the figures here as a starting point for a narrower search, not as a finished landscape.
Counted over all 44 published records, including filings from before 2009; the filing-trend chart below covers only the 26 records from 2009 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 DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LP). 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; 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 15 of the 15 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 15 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.
Two views of the same 19 families: when the underlying records were first filed, and which IPC subclass they sit in.
The series runs from 2009 (1 record) to a peak of 6 records in 2014, then continues to 2026. Records from 2022 onward are still filling in as later filings publish, so the recent end of the line understates the eventual count rather than showing a drop-off.
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 (26 records); the 44 total quoted above includes earlier filings outside the window.
Every one of the 19 families in scope carries IPC subclass G06F, Electric digital data processing. Other subclasses returned by the search sit well below that level and are not broken out in the prose because this dataset cannot separate a genuine minor branch from a false match on broad search terms.
Shares are the percentage of the 19 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 optimizer join order enumeration algorithm patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaA system and method for join order optimization in a query optimizer is disclosed. The method includes receiving a query having a plurality of join operators, including at least one multi-way join between relational operators in the query tree. The join operators include at least one outer-join and/or semi-join. The multi-way-join is transformed to a multi-join operator with a plurality of join back bone children representing the relational operators. The dependencies that occur between the join back bone children are tracked. Join order validity is evaluated based on the tracked dependencies.This is the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest or broadest filing in the set. Its abstract describes a method for handling outer and semi joins within join order optimization; what its granted claims actually require has to be read from the claim set itself, which this page does not reproduce.


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 dataset, reported without rolling them up into a bigger claim than they support.
International Business Machine Corporation is named on 4 of the 19 simple patent families in scope, a 21.1% share. This is a count of named families, not a measure of claim scope, validity or commercial value.
13 of the 15 listed filers hold 2 or fewer simple patent families each. The listed rows are organisations only; individual-named filers are removed from the list but remain inside the 19-family total.
At the 2026-10-15 retrieval date, 16 of the 44 published records (36%) were granted and still in force. The remaining records are pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and that breakdown is not separated out here.
Across the 5 receiving offices returned by this search, records were filed at the United States (32), India (4), Europe/EPO (3), WIPO/PCT (3) and the United Kingdom (2), counted in published records, which can exceed the family total because one invention can be filed at more than one office.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to database query optimizer join order enumeration algorithm patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.
This page reports counts; the next step is reading claims and narrowing scope directly.
19 families is a small pool built from one search string. A practitioner with domain terms specific to their own join-order approach can refine this set in Patsnap Eureka to separate genuine coverage from search-string noise.
Refine the searchNo abstract or family count establishes what a granted claim covers. Anyone assessing freedom to operate around join order enumeration needs the actual claim sets, read directly, not inferred from this page.
Review claim sets36% of the 44 published records were in force at retrieval; the rest sit across several different statuses not broken out here. Confirming current status on any single record requires checking it individually.
Check statusThis search returns 19 simple patent families, consolidated from 44 published records, using the string TAC:(("database" OR "query optimizer") AND ("join order") AND (enumerat* OR "dynamic programming" OR search)). That is a count of what matched this specific query, not a count of every patent that might relate to join order enumeration, since different wording or classification choices would return a different set. Treat it as a starting point for a narrower search rather than a final total.
International Business Machine Corporation is named on 4 of the 19 simple patent families in scope, the highest count of any single row in the filer list. Two further rows beginning with Hewlett Packard are listed separately and are not added together, since one family can name more than one filer and summing rows would overcount. The filer list covers organisations only; individually named inventors are removed from that list but remain inside the overall family and record totals.
The published abstract for US20110055199A1 describes a method for join order optimization that handles multi-way joins, including outer joins and semi-joins, by transforming them into a multi-join operator and tracking dependencies between its components to validate join order. An abstract summarizes the disclosure; it does not state what the granted claims require, since claim scope is set by the claim language and prosecution history, not the abstract. Anyone evaluating whether a design falls inside or outside this patent needs to read the granted claim set directly.
The filing trend by earliest filing year runs from 1 record in 2009 to a peak of 6 records in 2014, continuing through to 2026, counted in published records rather than de-duplicated families. Records with an earliest filing year from 2022 onward are still filling in as later filings publish, so that recent stretch understates its eventual count and should not be read as a decline. With totals this small, year-to-year moves reflect a handful of documents and do not support a growth or slowdown claim.
The filer list returned by this search names 15 organisations, led by International Business Machine Corporation with 4 of the 19 simple patent families. 13 of those 15 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, which is the clearest way to describe how spread the filings are without summing rows into a false concentration figure. The list is limited to organisations and to the top entries the search returned, so it is not a complete record of every filer in this space.
Go past this page: query the whole database query optimizer join order enumeration algorithm 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" OR "query optimizer") AND ("join order") AND (enumerat* OR "dynamic programming" OR search))
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 44 records and 19 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 15 of the 15 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 15 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 (16 of 44). 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