%We formalize our claim from \Cref{sec:intro} that a linear approximation algorithm for our problem implies that PDB queries (under bag semantics) can be answered (approximately) in the same runtime as deterministic queries under reasonable assumptions.
%Lastly, we generalize our result for expectation to other moments.
%\subsection{Cost Model, Query Plans, and Runtime}
%As in the introduction, we could consider polynomials to be represented as an expression tree.
%However, they do not capture many of the compressed polynomial representations that we can get from query processing algorithms on bags, including the recent work on worst-case optimal join algorithms~\cite{ngo-survey,skew}, factorized databases~\cite{factorized-db}, and FAQ~\cite{DBLP:conf/pods/KhamisNR16}. Intuitively, the main reason is that an expression tree does not allow for `sharing' of intermediate results, which is crucial for these algorithms (and other query processing methods as well).
%So far our analysis of \Cref{prob:intro-stmt} has been in terms of the size of the lineage circuits.
%We now show that this model corresponds to the behavior of a deterministic database by proving that for any \raPlus query $\query$, we can construct a compressed circuit for $\poly$ and \bi $\pdb$ of size and runtime linear in that of a general class of query processing algorithms for the same query $\query$ on $\pdb$'s \dbbaseName $\dbbase$.
% Note that by definition, there exists a linear relationship between input sizes $|\pxdb|$ and $|\dbbase|$ (i.e., $\exists c, \db \in \pxdb$ s.t. $\abs{\pxdb} \leq c \cdot \abs{\db})$).
% \footnote{This is a reasonable assumption because each block of a \bi represents entities with uncertain attributes.
% In practice there is often a limited number of alternatives for each block (e.g., which of five conflicting data sources to trust). Note that all \tis trivially fulfill this condition (i.e., $c = 1$).}
%That is for \bis that fulfill this restriction approximating the expectation of results of SPJU queries is only has a constant factor overhead over deterministic query processing (using one of the algorithms for which we prove the claim).
We require only that the algorithm must enumerate its output, i.e., that $\jointime{R_1, \ldots, R_m}\geq |R_1\bowtie\ldots\bowtie R_m|$. %With this definition of $\jointime{\cdot}$, worst-case optimal join algorithms are handled.
Worst-case optimal join algorithms~\cite{skew,ngo-survey} and query evaluation via factorized databases~\cite{factorized-db} (as well as work on FAQs~\cite{DBLP:conf/pods/KhamisNR16} and AJAR~\cite{ajar}) can be modeled as $\raPlus$ queries (though the query size is data dependent).
We assume that full table scans are used for every base relation access. We can model index scans by treating an index scan query $\sigma_\theta(R)$ as a base relation.
% () .\footnote{This claim can be verified by e.g. simply looking at the {\em Generic-Join} algorithm in~\cite{skew} and {\em factorize} algorithm in~\cite{factorized-db}.} It can be verified that the above cost model on the corresponding $\raPlus$ join queries correctly captures the runtime of current best known .
\Cref{lem:circ-model-runtime} and \Cref{lem:tlc-is-the-same-as-det} show that for any $\raPlus$ query $\query$ and \dbbaseName$\tupset$, there exists a circuit $\circuit^*$ such that $\timeOf{\abbrStepOne}(Q,\tupset,\circuit^*)$ and $|\circuit^*|$ are both $O(\qruntimenoopt{\optquery{\query}, \tupset,\bound})$, as we assumed when moving from \Cref{prob:big-o-joint-steps} to \Cref{prob:intro-stmt}. Lastly, we can handle FAQs/AJAR queries and factorized databases by allowing for optimization. %, i.e. $\qruntimenoopt{\optquery{\query}, \gentupset, \bound}$.
% Given an $\raPlus$ query $\query$ over a \ti $\pdb$ with \dbbaseName $\dbbase$, we can compute a $(1\pm\eps)$-approximation of the expectation for each output tuple in $\query(\pdb)$ with probability at least $1-\delta$ in time
