On 10 December 2018 17:21:05 "G.W. Haywood" <clamav@jubileegroup.co.uk> wrote:

Hi there,

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018, Steve Basfordwrote:

... MiscreantPunch099-Low.ldb for additional detection but can hit
scanning performance.

Can you give any estimate (however rough) of the performance hit?

 Scanning a small file... With each database... Not hugely scientific... Just relative to each other... 

badmacro.ndb: 937 ms 

blurl.ndb: 1125 ms 

bofhland_cracked_URL.ndb: 859 ms 
bofhland_malware_attach.hdb: 859 ms 
bofhland_malware_URL.ndb: 844 ms 
bofhland_phishing_URL.ndb: 828 ms 
crdfam.clamav.hdb: 844 ms 
doppelstern.hdb: 844 ms 
doppelstern.ndb: 844 ms 
doppelstern-phishtank.ndb: 828 ms 
foxhole_all.cdb: 844 ms 
foxhole_all.ndb: 844 ms 
foxhole_filename.cdb: 938 ms 
foxhole_generic.cdb: 860 ms 
foxhole_js.cdb: 828 ms 
foxhole_js.ndb: 828 ms 
foxhole_mail.cdb: 828 ms 

junk.ndb: 1750 ms 

jurlbl.ndb: 985 ms 
jurlbla.ndb: 906 ms 
lott.ndb: 859 ms 
malware.expert.hdb: 828 ms 
malware.expert.ldb: 860 ms 
malware.expert.ndb: 859 ms 
MiscreantPunch099-INFO-Low.ldb: 922 ms 

MiscreantPunch099-Low.ldb: Possible Performance Issue: 10407 ms  

phish.ndb: 4282 ms 

phishtank.ndb: 1172 ms 

porcupine.ndb: 922 ms 
rogue.hdb: 859 ms 

scam.ndb: 1156 ms 

scamnailer.ndb: 3953 ms 

shelter.ldb: 843 ms 
spam.ldb: 844 ms 
spamattach.hdb: 891 ms 
spamimg.hdb: 844 ms 

spear.ndb: 1532 ms

spearl.ndb: 828 ms 
winnow.attachments.hdb: 829 ms 
winnow.complex.patterns.ldb: 860 ms 
winnow_bad_cw.hdb: 844 ms 
winnow_extended_malware.hdb: 937 ms 
winnow_extended_malware_links.ndb: 844 ms 
winnow_malware.hdb: 828 ms 
winnow_malware_links.ndb: 843 ms 
winnow_phish_complete.ndb: 843 ms 
winnow_phish_complete_url.ndb: 828 ms 
winnow_spam_complete.ndb: 844 ms 


Cheers,

Steve
Twitter: @sanesecurity