Is it much worse with a Glock?
Hey, some shooters (including myself) love the GLOCK trigger. Especially w/the 3.5# connecter, ala the practical/tactical 34 9mm. Which btw is my official recommendation, unless you want to save some cash and go for the original, in the 17. It's all win-win. All of your stated priorities are belong to GLOCK:
-Cheap range time with 9mm, as a 17/34 will happily eat all the cheap stuff without prejudice
-Plenty accurate for IDPA/IPSC; moreso, one of the better performing platforms in many types of game.
-Ideal pistol for home/self defense. 17's even great for carry, hell maybe even the 34, depending on your size. Both are rock solid reliable, high in capacity, light yet tough, with a simple and safe point&click interface. Best bang for buck north of a Ruger*.
The .22lr, while the ultimate in cheap plinking, fills neither of these last two capacities. Would require two guns to cover all your bases if you go .22lr. And as you said, you like centerfire pistols "much more" anyways (as do I). If you pick up a descent .22, and skimp on your 9mm because of it, you might regret it when you discover the latter is what you shoot most (I did and do, and ended up buying and selling a few before realizing the G34 is where it's at for ME)*. (ETA- wait, so you already have a .22? NM then.)
If you get both, my official answer is Ruger kmk678gc and GLOCK 17. If one (or if you already have a .22), and especially if you are not going to carry---> GLOCK34.
*AAYMFMMV, WDIKHTTYMFTS?