I'm looking at a specific example of a relation with a composite primary key. Based on its functional dependencies, I know it is in 1NF. While normalizing it to 3NF I came across a situation I have not yet encountered. I followed the steps for all partial dependencies and transitive dependencies, but the last step of normalizing to 3NF requires you to create a relation that contains the primary key and all non-prime attributes dependent on it.
In my specific case, I have the primary key, but no full functional dependencies on it. Do I make a table containing only my composite primary key? Or do I not make one at all?
I have no confusion of composite and primary keys. See my comment below to see why I believe my question is different from that one
It is perfectly legitimate to have a relation that consists of a composite key and no other attributes. It's not only theoretically valid, but also it happens in the real world.
In such situation, that relation is merely asserting the existence of something identified by the composite key. And it would be used by the user of the data to test for existence and not for the same kind of lookups that a relation with non key attributes is typically used for.