Learning-based approaches for selectivity estimation in databases have gained significant traction in recent years. However, theoretical studies of these learning-based approaches are essentially limited to fixed query distributions on static databases. In practice, both the underlying database and the query workload can dynamically change over time. In this work, we propose an algorithmic framework for learning selectivity of queries in this more general dynamic setup. Inspired by online learning, we measure the performance of the learning algorithm in this setting by its regret, which compares the cumulative loss incurred by the learning algorithm to that of the best fixed strategy. We establish upper and lower bounds on regret for histogram-based linear queries, such as point, range, and subset selection queries, under standard loss functions, in both static and dynamic database settings.
A filtered approximate-nearest-neighbor (ANN) query returns the k nearest vectors among those satisfying an attribute predicate P of selectivity s. The best execution strategy -- pre-filter, post-filter, or in-filter -- changes with s, so a system must estimate s and choose. We model this as an argmax over a landscape with phases (regions where each strategy wins) separated by boundaries, and show that selectivity-estimation error produces plan regret -- recall lost versus the oracle strategy -- only in the critical regions around those boundaries. The regret is a wedge of log-width equal to the multiplicative estimation error epsilon and height equal to the local cliff |V'(s*)| epsilon; the flip-margin 1/|V'(s*)| is the condition number of a sibling cardinality-estimation study reappearing as the local boundary theory. The two phase boundaries follow from independent mathematics: order statistics place the post-filter cliff at s ~ k/K, and site percolation places the in-filter cliff at s_c ~ 0.83/M for graph degree M (corpus-size independent). Criticality exists only under a constrained budget B < sqrt(k n). Under pre-registered decision rules we confirm, on synthetic sweeps and real SIFT1M, that regret concentrates ~290x at the boundary and that the regret curves obey a finite-size scaling collapse onto one universal wedge across two decades of corpus size. A real approximate index does not mis-locate the boundary, but a biased cost model opens a persistent miscalibration band that estimation-error robustness cannot fix. The contribution is a characterization, not a new index. Code and the full pre-registration are public.