What types of bypass capacitors must be used?
All should be ceramic?
Electrolytic are much too slow, ceramic are in a good place on the fast/cheap graph.
Slow in what sense? Is an electrolytic with approx. equivalents C = 100uF, ESR = 0.5Ω and ESL = 3nH "slow"? (Hint: it'll probably outperform most recommended combinations of ceramics!)
But it will be unlikely to outperform a combination of an electrolytic and ceramic capacitor.
Usually a single larger electrolytic capacitor is use for bulk decoupling of many packages and to swamp out resonances of the higher Q ceramic capacitors. (1)
The RC time constant is a small part of the story. Typically, the layout is a bigger part!
Which points to why one larger electrolytic capacitor can serve for bulk decoupling of several individually decoupled packages. The small capacitors do not have enough capacitance to work at low frequencies and at low frequencies, the relatively remote electrolytic capacitor is not that far away.
Not just TTL, for any digital or MCU based circuit which might accompany analog parts or analog ICs such as Opamp. If we gonna use 3 capacitors, I was thinking to use tantalum for the biggest one (1uF). what do you think?
10nF and 100nF => ceramic
1uF => tantalum
Stacking up different value ceramic caps is foolhardy. Normally, it makes things worse. No one realizes this, because no one tests this!
Some application notes recommend this for specific parts like wideband operational amplifiers and converters. I wonder though if these date from the time when through hole layouts were parasitic inductance was greater. (1)
It is not quite the same situation but one project I did involved a 50 ohm high power capacitive ground isolator which operated from 50 MHz to 1.2 GHz. It ended up with 4 x 1000pF, 4 x 0.01uF, and 4 x 0.1uF surface mount ceramic capacitors in parallel using a symmetrical coaxial transmission line layout. Just using 4 x 0.1uF capacitors did not work at all.
Tantalum are generally safe from an impedance standpoint, but 1uF may be too small, in that its ESR will be too high to be beneficial. Tantalum are also unsafe on high current power supplies -- they tend to catch fire.
This sort of thing has always bothered me. Why isn't the output from the power supply better controlled to limit surge current or dv/dt?
(1) At some point it pays off to model the power distribution circuit and if you have the proper equipment, test it. I suspect this is either foreign or infeasible for many engineers leading to a mix and mash of various rules of thumb for decoupling which usually work but not always. Jim Williams had something to say about decoupling in Linear Technology application note 47 but unfortunately did not test any polymer electrolytic capacitors.