The GCD example only lightly touches on the differences between logic programming and functional programming as they are much closer to each other than to imperative programming. I will concentrate on Prolog and OCaml, but I believe it is quite representative.
Logical Variables and Unification:
Prolog allows to express partial datastructures e.g. in the term node(24,Left,Right) we don't need to specify what Left and Right stand for, they might be any term. A functional language might insert a lazy function or a thunk which is evaluated later on, but at the creation of the term, we need to know what to insert.
Logical variables can also be unified (i.e. made equal). A search function in OCaml might look like:
let rec find v = function
| [] -> false
| x::_ when v = x -> true
| _::xs (* otherwise *) -> find v xs
While the Prolog implementation can use unification instead of v=x:
member_of(X,[X|_]).
member_of(X,[_|Xs]) :-
member_of(X,Xs).
For the sake of simplicity, the Prolog version has some drawbacks (see below in backtracking).
Backtracking:
Prolog's strength lies in successively instantiating variables which can be easily undone. If you try the above program with variables, Prolog will return you all possible values for them:
?- member_of(X,[1,2,3,1]).
X = 1 ;
X = 2 ;
X = 3 ;
X = 1 ;
false.
This is particularly handy when you need to explore search trees but it comes at a price. If we did not specify the size of the list, we will successively create all lists fulfilling our property - in this case infinitely many:
?- member_of(X,Xs).
Xs = [X|_3836] ;
Xs = [_3834, X|_3842] ;
Xs = [_3834, _3840, X|_3848] ;
Xs = [_3834, _3840, _3846, X|_3854] ;
Xs = [_3834, _3840, _3846, _3852, X|_3860] ;
Xs = [_3834, _3840, _3846, _3852, _3858, X|_3866] ;
Xs = [_3834, _3840, _3846, _3852, _3858, _3864, X|_3872]
[etc etc etc]
This means that you need to be more careful using Prolog, because termination is harder to control. In particular, the old-style ways (the cut operator !) to do that are pretty hard to use correctly and there's still some discussion about the merits of recent approaches (deferring goals (with e.g. dif), constraint arithmetic or a reified if). In a functional programming language, backtracking is usually implemented by using a stack or a backtracking state monad.
Invertible Programs:
Perhaps one more appetizer for using Prolog: functional programming has a direction of evaluation. We can use the find function only to check if some v is a member of a list, but we can not ask which lists fulfill this. In Prolog, this is possible:
?- Xs = [A,B,C], member_of(1,Xs).
Xs = [1, B, C],
A = 1 ;
Xs = [A, 1, C],
B = 1 ;
Xs = [A, B, 1],
C = 1 ;
false.
These are exactly the lists with three elements which contain (at least) one element 1. Unfortunately the standard arithmetic predicates are not invertible and together with the fact that the GCD of two numbers is always unique is the reason why you could not find too much of a difference between functional and logic programming.
To summarize: logic programming has variables which allow for easier pattern matching, invertibility and exploring multiple solutions of the search tree. This comes at the cost of complicated flow control. Depending on the problem it is easier to have a backtracking execution which is sometimes restricted or to add backtracking to a functional language.
