[database] Partial Dependency (Databases)

A FD (functional dependency) that holds in a relation is partial when removing one of the determining attributes gives a FD that holds in the relation. A FD that isn't partial is full.

Eg: If {A,B} ? {C} but also {A} ? {C} then {C} is partially functionally dependent on {A,B}.

Eg: Here's a relation value where that example condition holds. (A FD holds in a relation variable when it holds in every value that can arise.)

A  B  C
1  1  1
1  2  1
2  1  1

The non-trivial FDs that hold: {A,B} determines {C}, {B,C}, {A,C} & {A,B,C}; {A}, {B} & {} also determine {C}. Of those: {A,B} ? {C} is partial per {A} ? {C}, {B} ? {C} & {} ? {C}; {A} ? {C} & {B} ? {C} are partial per {} ? {C}; the others are full.

A functional dependency X ? Y is a full functional dependency if removal of any attribute A from X means that the dependency does not hold any more; that is, for any attribute A e X, (X – {A}) does not functionally determine Y. A functional dependency X ? Y is a partial dependency if some attribute A e X can be removed from X and the dependency still holds; that is, for some A e X, (X – {A}) ? Y.

-- FUNDAMENTALS OF Database Systems SIXTH EDITION Ramez Elmasri & Navathe

Notice that whether a FD is full vs partial doesn't depend on CKs (candidate keys), let alone one CK that you might be calling the PK (primary key).

(A definition of 2NF is that every non-CK attribute is fully functionally determined by every CK. Observe that the only CK is {A,B} & the only non-CK attribute C is partially dependent on it so this value is not in 2NF & indeed it is the lossless join of components/projections onto {A,B} & {A,C}, onto {A,B} & {B,C} & onto {A,B} & {C}.)

(Beware that that textbook's definition of "transitive FD" does not define the same sort of thing as the standard definition of "transitive FD".)