10 replaced http://dba.stackexchange.com/ with https://dba.stackexchange.com/
source | link
9 replaced http://serverfault.com/ with https://serverfault.com/
source | link
8 problem finally solved
source | link

SOLVED

So, we finally tested this in prod, and it was the problem I commented on previously. I put the value of innodb_buffer_pool_size in 321M, which is the value recommended by the vendor of the SDK we use, even though according to the previous links it should be around 3G for a DB of this size and usage.

I still have a doubt, though: the value of 321 was an invalid value (too small), so MySQL took another value. My suspicion is that it took the previous valid number, 321M in test, and 182M in prod, hence the speed differences. It's just out of curiosity, but I would like to know if this is right.

Thank you all again for the help.

SOLVED

So, we finally tested this in prod, and it was the problem I commented on previously. I put the value of innodb_buffer_pool_size in 321M, which is the value recommended by the vendor of the SDK we use, even though according to the previous links it should be around 3G for a DB of this size and usage.

I still have a doubt, though: the value of 321 was an invalid value (too small), so MySQL took another value. My suspicion is that it took the previous valid number, 321M in test, and 182M in prod, hence the speed differences. It's just out of curiosity, but I would like to know if this is right.

Thank you all again for the help.

7 update
source | link
6 added 56 characters in body
source | link
5 More information
source | link
4 More information
source | link
3 added 81 characters in body
source | link
2 Removed windows 2008 tag since the OS is not the real issue. Added windows tag since both servers use Windows
| link
    Tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackDBAs/status/502858522905051136
    Post Migrated Here from serverfault.com
1
source | link